Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Artificial Limbs (Repairs)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Pensions why it was necessary for a patient, whose name has been sent to him, to travel to Manchester on 19th September, 4th November, 20th December, 1949, and 24th February and 3rd May, 1950, and to Leeds on 6th September and 6th October, 1950, in connection with the repair of an artificial limb; what was the final cost of the repair; and the total amount of travelling and subsistence allowances borne by the public.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): It was necessary for the patient to attend the limb fitting centres on the dates named because one or other of his two artificial limbs required repair, adjustment or fitting involving surgical considerations. I am satisfied that the attendances were in the patient's best interests. I am unable to give the cost of the repairs as the makers are paid a flat rate fee for maintaining the limbs in good condition. The travelling and subsistence allowances borne by public funds amount to just over £13.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this patient, who has had experience of wearing an artificial limb since 1917, considered that the only repair necessary was the re-lining of the stump socket, which could have been done in three hours if the system of the hon. Gentleman were sufficiently decentralised to allow of it being done on the spot? Instead, the limbs have to be sent away to Roehampton, sent back for fitting, and then, if not correctly done, sent away again. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this work is not yet completed, and that

my constituent is still waiting for one of his limbs?

Mr. Simmons: The reason the pensioner had to go to two limb fitting centres was that he changed his address and the Leeds centre was a more convenient centre for him than the Manchester centre which he first attended. The various reasons for which he had to attend the limb fitting centres were for the re-measuring of his stump, for the renewal of his socket and the refitting of his corset, the adjustment made to his 1946 leg while he waited, the interim fitting of the socket and the corset of his spare leg, the re-fitting and lining of his 1946 leg, and the passing out of the 1941 leg. All these adjustments were made at his own request. On the number of visits necessary, I must stress that one cannot sling an artificial leg at a man like a ready-made suit; it must be adjusted and readjusted until the wearer is satisfied that he has a complete fit. I am not prepared to compel any limbless man to hobble about on a lacerated stump while we haggle about the cost of a visit to a limb fitting centre, and I am amazed that any hon. Member should be so parsimonius as to grudge this man the best possible attention. In this case the cost to the taxpayer was £13.

Mr. Vane: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We had a very long supplementary question and we have had a speech in reply, so I think we had better pass to the next Question.

Amputated Limbs (Pension Rates)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the weekly rate of disability pension for an unmarried ex-private with amputation of right hand, or a leg above the knee, in 1919, 1938 and 1950; and if he will now re-assess the value of human limbs in view of the lowered purchasing power of war pensions since 1938.

Mr. Simmons: Twenty-four shillings, 24s. and 27s., respectively, for amputation of right hand or of a leg below the middle thigh. The second part of the Question involves the basic rate of pension. on which I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 17th October by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Russell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and France have all increased their disability pension rates in the last two years, and does not he think, in view of the enormous increase in the cost of living since the pensions were originally fixed, that some better increase ought to be given than has already been given?

Mr. Simmons: I have nothing to add to my reply.

Motor Invalid Chairs

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions what steps he takes to have the motor-powered invalid chairs, supplied by his Department, regularly inspected; and at what intervals this is done.

Mr. Simmons: Patients are expected to keep the machines in good running order and an inspection is made approximately once a year to see that this is done. When the machines are in the hands of repairers, the opportunity is taken to have them overhauled. My right hon Friend is considering whether any changes are required in the existing arrangements for inspection.

Sir I. Fraser: Following the recent observations of a coroner at Nottingham that these machines were dangerous in some respects and should be frequently inspected, has the Minister had a report and, if so, how does it affect his policy?

Mr. Simmons: There is no record of any previous accident arising from a failure of this sort on this type of steering, and nearly 4,000 machines are carrying it at present. If, on examination of the engineer's report from the insurance company, which we are to receive along with that of our own technical experts, my right hon. Friend is convinced that these machines are, in fact, unsafe, he will take immediate steps to rectify the position.

Mr. Vane: Will the hon. Gentleman try and see whether the repair and inspection of these invalid chairs can be done in a more decentralised way than at present, on the same lines as my plea for the fitting of artificial limbs? Is he also aware that this is a perfectly genuine question and does not deserve the gibe he applied to my previous Question.

Mr. Simmons: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. They are decentralised in regional offices.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Troopship (Conditions)

Mr. Baker White: asked The Secretary of State for War if he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the overcrowding of other ranks on the recent voyage of s.s. "Empress of Australia" to Far Eastern waters, while two-thirds of the available living space in the ship was allocated to officers, warrant officers and sergeants; and whether, in view of widespread disquiet among the parents and relatives of the other ranks concerned, he will make public the results of this inquiry.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): Two thousand one hundred and fifty-eight officers and other ranks sailed in this ship. She has accommodation for 2,462 but this involves "hard lying" for 511 men. In fact, 227 men had "hard lying" spaces as far as Suez and 119 after Suez. Considering that the ship was on an operational voyage, I cannot agree that this constitutes overcrowding. Nor do I think that there was anything wrong in the way the sleeping accommodation was allotted. I am calling for a report on the allocation of recreational space on this ship and will write to the hon. Member.

Malay-Speaking Officers

Air Commodore Harvey: asked The Secretary of State for War how many officers have sat for an examination on speaking Malay; and how many have passed during the last two years.

Mr. Strachey: Examinations in Malay were held for the first time since the war in the financial year 1949–50. Twenty-eight officers sat for the examination and 17 passed. The examinations for this year are still in progress.

Air Commodore Harvey: As the war in Malaya is now in its third year, can the Minister say why this matter has been left so long? Will he bear in mind that, if we are to meet with success in this difficult war, it is essential that officers and non-commissioned officers should be able to speak the language?

Mr. Strachey: I quite agree on the importance of teaching Malay, and I think we shall find that a large number of officers and other ranks have taken the examination this year.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Will the Minister make it compulsory for officers and other ranks to pass this examination after the first year if they have a three years' tour of duty?

Home Guard

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has any statement to make as to the setting up of a Home Guard.

Mr. Strachey: Not yet.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that the British Legion would give all possible help to the Army in recruiting such a force, but that it is desirable to announce the intention or deny it as soon as possible in order that these men may choose their best form of national service?

Mr. Strachey: I quite agree. It is just because of the obligation of deciding priorities between these different forms of auxiliary service that we cannot make a premature announcement, but we hope to do so in the very near future.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is the Minister aware that many men are delaying engaging in Civil Defence because they served before in the Home Guard and wish to do so again? Would it not be well to make a decision in view of the great service the Home Guard has performed?

Mr. Strachey: There cannot be a unilateral decision on the part of the War Office. It must be taken into account with the priority needs of other Departments.

Property and Equipment (Sabotage)

Brigadier Rayner: asked The Secretary of State for War how many cases of suspected sabotage have occurred to Army property or equipment in the last six months.

Mr. Strachey: Thefts and the cutting of cables in the Middle East and bandit activities in Malaya, are the only instances in which sabotage to Army property or equipment has been established during the past six months.

French and British Officers (Exchange)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked The Secretary of State for War how many French

officers have been attached to British units in the British Army of the Rhine or at home or have attended Army courses in schools in the British Army of the Rhine or at home during the past year; and how many British officers have been attached to French units or have attended French Army courses or schools.

Mr. Strachey: During the past year 16 French officers have been attached to British units in the Army of the Rhine and 61 to units in the United Kingdom; no French officers have attended Army courses or schools in the Army of the Rhine, but 12 have attended courses or schools in the United Kingdom. Sixty-five British officers have been attached to French units and one British officer has attended a French Army school.

Mr. Low: In view of the great importance of Anglo-French co-operation in the formation of European defences, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that during the forthcoming year greater steps should be taken to see that French and British officers have an opportunity of understanding each other's methods?

Mr. Strachey: I think opportunities will arise during the next year, and we hope to get exchanges going with other countries in Western Europe as well as France.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it proposed also to have an interchange of N.C.Os. and warrant officers, as there are a number of courses for them run by each Army?

Mr. Strachey: As far as I know, nothing has been worked out yet on those lines, but I will consider the matter.

Shot Tower (Gun Mounting)

Mr. Low: asked The Secretary of State for War how much damage was done to the 3.7 inch heavy anti-aircraft gun which fell from a great height in the Shot Tower on the Festival of Britain site; and what was the purpose of putting this gun into this position.

Mr. Strachey: It was not the gun itself which was hoisted, but the mounting, which it was intended to use to mount a radio telescope. The mounting must be written off. Another mounting has now been hoisted into position.

Mr. Low: Does the Minister mean that no damage was done to an anti-aircraft gun?

Mr. Strachey: It was the mounting of a gun, not the gun itself.

Divisions

Mr. Edward Heath: asked The Secretary of State for War the total number of British divisions in existence on 1st January, 1945, and how many of these were operational as opposed to training formations; and the same figures for the Indian Army at the same date, and those for the British Army today.

Mr. Strachey: On 1st January, 1945, there were 28 British divisions, of which 22 were operational. The Indian Army contained 14 divisions, of which 12 were operational. There were, in addition, in each case, a number of non-divisional formations. The British Army today contains the equivalent of 6½ Regular divisions, all operational. An additional three Regular divisions are now being raised and the number of Territorial Army divisions will be brought up to 12.

Mr. Heath: As there has recently been some ill-informed criticism in the United States Press as to the contribution of this country to the Allied effort in 1945, will the Minister do his best to see that the information service there gives the widest publicity to the information he has given in his answer?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, but, of course, this is by no means fresh information.

Brigadier Smyth: Will the Minister consult his right hon. Friends with a view to trying to resolve the tragic and bitter dispute with regard to Kashmir which is preventing the forces of Pakistan and India from making any contribution to imperial defence or to the United Nations, as they did in 1945?

Mr. Strachey: That is a very different question.

Sir Ralph Glyn: In his answer just now the Minister referred to so many divisions and a half division, and said that three divisions were being added. Is he going to make up the remainder of the half division?

Sir Herbert Williams: What is half a division?

Mr. Strachey: A half is part of the whole. The British Army today contains the equivalent of six and a half divisions.

Mr. Low: Will the Minister say exactly what he means by "the equivalent" of a division, because nine separate battalions and a few separate field regiments may be taken as an equivalent but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, they are not the equivalent of a division when they are separate and not organised.

Mr. Strachey: It may be convenient to have forces not organised in divisional formation, as, for example, the forces going to Korea at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.

Sir H. Williams: Is it half a division when three Liberals vote for the Government?

Supplementary Reserve Officers (Recall)

Mr. Vosper: asked The Secretary of State for War the number of former Supplementary Reserve officers who have been recalled to the Colours during the present emergency; and if he is satisfied that liability for this recall was made sufficiently clear upon conclusion of Supplementary Reserve service.

Mr. Strachey: I am ascertaining how many former Supplementary Reserve officers have been recalled, during the emergency in Korea, on their liability as members of Regular Army Reserves, and will send the information to the hon. Member.
I am satisfied that officers who, at the end of their Supplementary Reserve service, were retained on the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, should have been aware of this liability. It was clearly laid down in the "Regulations for officers of the Supplementary Reserve of Officers" that it was the responsibility of such officers to notify the War Office if they wished to resign their commissions instead of continuing in the Regular Army Reserve of Officers. Further, each of these officers were notified at the end of their Supplementary Reserve service that they would continue to serve as members of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, of which the Supplementary Reserve of Officers is a part, unless they notified the War Office that they did not desir2 to do so.

Mr. Vosper: With reference to the second part of the Minister's reply, in spite of the assurances given, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still doubt in the minds of many of these ex-Supplementary Reserve officers as to their transfer to the Regular Army Reserve? Would it not be of mutual advantage to make it even clearer so as to avoid confusion that occurs when call-up papers arrive for someone who thinks he is fairly secure in civilian life?

Mr. Strachey: We write to each of these officers and tell them that unless they notify us to the contrary they are automatically transferred to the Reserve of Officers. I do not know what more definite action we could take.

Troops, Korea (Reservists)

Mr. Niail Macpherson: asked The Secretary of State for War on what grounds the system of organising infantry regiments in groups has been departed from in the arrangements under which Reserves drawn from Scottish regiments are being sent as reinforcements for the brigade composed of non-Scottish battalions despatched from this country for service in Korea.

Mr. Strachey: Infantry battalions in the United Kingdom which were selected for service in Korea were built up to strength by Reservists drawn from the Regular Army Reserve, who are liable for recall to any branch of the Army. Reservists from the groups to which the battalions belonged were insufficient to meet the requirements. It was, therefore, necessary to find the balance by calling up Reservists from other groups.

Mr. Macpherson: When Reservists are drawn into other groups in this way, does it not mean that when the groups to which the Reservists belong are subsequently sent abroad, Reservists may have to be drawn from other groups? Does this not entirely undermine the regimental spirit?

Mr. Strachey: We are concerned here with the Regular Army Reserve and not with the main Z Reserve of the Armed Forces.

Brigadier Peto: Has the right hon. Gentleman any ideas on the subject of reorganising the Reserves so that this sort of thing will not happen in future?

Mr. Strachey: It partly depends on the size of the Regular Army Reserve and the number of Reservists who have to be called up at any given moment. Owing to the relative sizes of those two figures today, this was unavoidable.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is there any truth in the rumour that it is the intention of the War Office to adopt the group system generally for infantry regiments at home?

Mr. Strachey: That is entirely another question.

Seconded Officers, Malaya (Income Tax)

Mr. Gammans: asked The Secretary of State for War if a decision has yet been reached regarding the payment of Income Tax by British officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks seconded to the Malay Regiment.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 3rd July, in which he made it clear that it was not proposed to exempt British officers and other ranks from the payment of United Kingdom rates of Income Tax, no matter where they are serving.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that these officers are not paid out of United Kingdom funds? Is there any other precedent for an officer in that position being charged British rates of Income Tax which the Colonial civil servant, paid under exactly the same circumstances, is not called upon to meet?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. This does not apply to the Malay Regiment alone. It applies to all this type of forces.

Mr. Keeling: If a civil servant paid by the Malayan Treasury does not pay British Income Tax, why should a soldier?

Mr. Strachey: These officers are only seconded for this duty.

Mr. Keeling: Who pays them?

Mr. Strachey: They differ in different cases, but even if they are paid out of local funds they are subject to United Kingdom Income Tax. That is perfectly true, and I think it is inevitable in present circumstances.

Mr. Keeling: Why?

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is The Secretary of State aware that this is a very real grievance amongst the Army officers concerned who feel that they are being discriminated against? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps to stop this feeling of grievance?

Mr. Strachey: I do not agree that there is discrimination.

Football Pitch, Otley

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked The Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the military authorities in Farnley Park, Otley, have made a football pitch and erected goal posts across the cricket pitch of the Otley Wesley Cricket Club, that this club has played on this pitch for over 25 years, and has spent over £250 in making this cricket field; and if he will instruct the unit to find a football pitch elsewhere in the 105 acres that they have requisitioned.

Mr. Strachey: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Casualties, Korea

Mr. Kaberry: asked The Secretary of State for War how many soldiers under 19 and 20 years, respectively, have been wounded or killed in Korea as at the latest available date.

Mr. Strachey: As already announced, no soldiers under 19 years of age are serving in Korea. According to information available up to 6th November, 1950, 12 men of 19 years old have been killed and 37 wounded.

Mr. Kaberry: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion these figures bear, in percentage, to the whole of the casualties up to that date?

Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.

Mr. Kaberry: asked The Secretary of State for War what welfare services are available to soldiers wounded in Korea; and what arrangements are made to keep relatives informed of the condition of the wounded or sick.

Mr. Strachey: British soldiers who have become wounded or sick in Korea have been evacuated by United States medical units, and I have no doubt that they are being well cared for. We have instructed

Far Eastern Land Forces to arrange with the American authorities that reports on these men's progress are sent to us as soon as possible. Twenty-nine Field Ambulance and 26 General Hospital are now on their way to Korea.

Sir Ronald Ross: Are the Forces Help Society, and other benevolent bodies who are accustomed to working for the welfare of the soldiers, given opportunities to do all they want to do?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. With the arrival of the main force in Korea I do not think there will be any difficulties there.

Captain Ryder: Is the Minister aware that there are delays in the receipt of information by the next-of-kin in the event of soldiers being wounded? Is he further aware that I know of one case in which there was a delay of six weeks?

Mr. Strachey: There have been delays, and that is because these cases are being attended to by the American authorities. We cannot expect the arrangements to work quite so expeditiously as long as that is the case, but as soon as our own medical arrangements are in operation in Korea, I do not think these difficulties will arise.

Captain Ryder: Is the Minister making representations to the United States authorities?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We have done so.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As soon as the right hon. Gentleman gets information from the American authorities, will it be passed to the relatives who are without news for long periods after the first intimation that their menfolk have been injured?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Recalled Reservist (Medical Examination)

Mr. Vane: asked The Secretary of State for War on what date 3598948 Signalman T. Wilson was found medically unfit for military service; on what date he embarked for the Far East; on what date and at what port he was disembarked for return to the United Kingdom; and what is the estimated cost to the public of this wasted journey.

Mr. Strachey: Signalman Wilson was seen by a psychiatrist on 27th September and recommended for a medical board with a view to discharge. He was, however, not medically boarded before his unit sailed. He embarked for the Far East on 2nd October. Instructions have been sent that he should not disembark in Korea but should return to the United Kingdom with his ship. The cost of the journey is approximately £100.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this Reservist was recalled he was not examined by the doctor individually, but just cursorily with three others at 1.30 a.m., and then posted to a unit? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Reservists are medically examined properly and when found unfit are not put on ships destined for theatres of operation?

Mr. Strachey: No doubt this man ought to have been medically boarded, and we are inquiring strictly into how it occurred that he was not.

Car Mileage Allowances

Brigadier Clarke: asked The Secretary of State for War when he proposes to bring mileage allowance for Army officers using their own cars on duty in line with the present cost of petrol.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) on 19th September.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that the Army officer is still paying for the increase in the supply of petrol granted at the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Western Union (Exchange of Personnel)

Mr. Vane: asked The Secretary of State for War what opportunities exist for selected officers and non-commissioned officers of the Territorial Army to serve attachments with foreign armies.

Mr. Strachey: Exchanges of selected officers now take place between the ground forces of Western Union on a one for one basis, normally for a period of

three weeks. These are, however, on a small scale and so far the scheme has been operating fully only with France. Few Territorial Army officers can afford the time in addition to their normal commitments, but the exchanges are not confined to the Regular Army.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and see whether Territorial officers and N.C.O.s can be included generously in this exchange scheme? Surely in the case of operations it will not be possible for the Regular Army to provide all the necessary military liaison officers and N.C.O.s.

Mr. Strachey: The Territorial officers are included and have actually gone.

Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have taken advantage of this scheme?

Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the Minister's answers to Question No. 9 and this Question, will he see whether there is some way in which he can instil a sense of urgency as regards these courses into the officials both in our own Army and in the French army?

Mr. Strachey: I think they are well aware of the importance of these courses, and, at any rate in the case of the French the exchanges are developing fairly rapidly. In the case of other nationalities in Western Europe, the scheme has not really not going.

Strength

Mr. Low: asked The Secretary of State for War what was the volunteer strength of the Territorial Army on 31st August and 30th September respectively.

Mr. Strachey: The volunteer strength of the Territorial Army, including the Women's Services, on 31st August was 10,570 officers and 79,047 other ranks. On 30th September it was 10,565 officers and 79,913 other ranks.

Mr. Low: In view of the continued shortage in many units of the Territorial Army, is the right hon. Gentleman considering any steps which he ought to take to fill the gaps which must remain during the next two years?

Mr. Strachey: We attach great importance, of course, to volunteer recruiting for the Territorial Army. Early next year the flow of National Service men into the Territorials will, of course, be resumed.

Mr. Low: It is one thing to attach great importance, but it is another thing to do something. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Basildon New Town

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what representations he has received from the Billericay Urban District Council requesting him to give an assurance that freeholders whose properties will not be required by the Basildon Development Corporation will be left secure in possession of their freeholds; and what answer he has given.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): In reply to a letter from this Council on 29th March, 1950, I stated that in the early years of the new town houses would not be acquired except for the purposes of development by the Corporation.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister not aware that until he repudiates the statement made last May by his Parliamentary Secretary that all freeholds in the new town would be taken over, doubt and uncertainty will continue to prevail? Will he give a clear assurance that freeholders whose properties are not required for development will be left secure in possession of their freeholds?

Mr. Dalton: I think the doubt and confusion are largely created by the hon. Member's propaganda in his own constituency.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why, before making a recent appointment to the Basildon Development Corporation, he did not first consult with the Billericay Urban District Council.

Mr. Dalton: I did, Sir.

Mr. Braine: That is not true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not say "that is not true." The Minister may be mistaken.

Mr. Braine: Under your direction, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. May I put it this way: the answer is a travesty of the truth? Is the Minister not aware that 27,000 people already live in the area of the new town and are affected directly by the decisions of the Development Corporation? Would it not, therefore, have been more democratic for the Minister to have consulted the elected representatives of the people before appointing a Socialist stockbroker?

Mr. Dalton: I have consulted nine local authorities, of whom the Billericay Urban District Council was one. In view of the statement which the hon. Member made and had to withdraw, I would point out that the letter in which I consulted the Corporation was dated 22nd September. I invited their observations; they were the only authority to raise any objection. They admitted that they knew nothing of the gentleman I proposed to appoint, and I have appointed him. When I visited the new town, I found that there was a charming lady, who I believe is none the less a Tory and who is a member of the Billericay Urban District Council, and I am sure that she will look after the hon. Member's constituents very well.

Mr. Braine: Arising out of that reply, is the Minister not aware that the Billericay Urban District Council was not consulted until after the appointment was made and that the local authority unanimously rejected the suggestion?

Former Westminster Hospital Site

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware of the improvement in the appearance of the precincts of Westminster Abbey and Middlesex Guildhall which has resulted from the demolition of the former Westminster Hospital building; and if consideration is being given to the possibility of preserving the site as an open space.

Mr. Dalton: Parliament has already approved the building of the new Colonial Office on this site.

Brigadier Medlicott: Was not this a case where town planning provisions Could have been made effective not only against the small property owners but also against the great State Departments? Secondly, is it not highly unsatisfactory from a strategic point of view to go on crowding Government buildings into the centre of London?

Mr. Dalton: It was gone into very fully in the last Parliament, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows. There was an Act on the subject. The Bill received Royal Assent on 31st July, 1947. The matter was gone into very fully and it was thought, on balance, that this was the best use of the site. From the point of view of amenity, the building is, of course, to be set back and it will occupy only two-thirds of the space of the hospital building which was there previously.

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a much better view of the Abbey could be obtained from the riverside and even from across the river if Abingdon Street were cleared of houses, as it is to be, and kept clear?

Mr. Dalton: That we will carefully consider.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that those of us who are Methodists are very pleased with the improved view of the Central Hall and hope that it will remain permanently?

Canvey Island and Southend (Boom)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will now direct that the boom installed for the purpose of protecting the beaches of Canvey Island and Southend-on-Sea from oil pollution, and which was removed as a war-time 'measure, shall be replaced.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I am advised that this boom would not prevent oil pollution.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor made a recommendation that the boom should be restored and, in view of the fact that oil pollution is a serious matter for any seaside resort, will not he look at the matter again?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I will not look at it again because I looked at it very carefully before. I am basing the decision on the report of experts from the Port of London Authority and the hydrographer of the Navy, and they say that the boom will be of no use at all and that oil pollution on beaches is largely caused by oil discharged from ships.

Mr. Braine: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and the Minister's lack of knowledge of the subject, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at the first opportunity.

Bungalow, Morden

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, in view of the threat to much other housing accommodation, he will take steps to prevent the demolition of the bungalow belonging to Mr. Edward John Hooper, of Alma, Morden, Dorset.

Mr. Dalton: My attention was drawn to this case by an article in the "Sunday Pictorial" on 29th October, which no doubt the hon. Gentleman also read, and I at once got in touch with the Dorsetshire County Council, who told me that they had no intention of demolishing this building at present and that Mr. Hooper has now applied to them for permission to retain it. If his application is rejected it will be made clear to him that he can appeal to me. In these circumstances I cannot comment now on the case.

Sir H. Williams: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the answer? Will he ask the editor of "Jane" to be more careful in the future?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Injured Workers (Hardship Allowance)

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) whether she will reconsider the cases where hardship allowance is granted and include cases where a worker can no longer be employed at his pre-accident work, although his loss of faculty has been assessed at nil;
(2) whether she is aware that medical boards assess loss of faculty by means of a fixed percentage irrespective of the great diversity of occupations and types


of worker; and whether she will consider a substantial increase in the special hardship allowance;
(3) when she proposes to grant to the injured workman the right to appeal against a medical board's provisional assessment, without the lapse of two years' time.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): These matters are among those which, as I said in my reply to my hon. Friend yesterday, I am discussing with the T.U.C. General Council.

r. Stross: While I accept the answer so far given, may I press the Minister with reference to the third of these Questions? Is she aware that the officers of the Ministry have a right of appeal against any assessment of the worker, whereas the injured person has no right of appeal against the Ministry at present? Could she not give me an answer to this Question stating that she is reconsidering the matter and will, perhaps, now give a decision?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. I am very much in sympathy with this point but, as I have discussed this matter very recently with the T.U.C., I would ask my hon. Friend to be a little patient in order that these discussions shall not be prejudiced.

Old Age Pensioners

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she has any statement to make in reply to the demand for an old age pension of 40s. a week, sent to her by the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners' Associations; how many old age pensioners already draw supplementary pensions; what these cost annually; and if she will give an estimate of how much more it would cost to give 40s. a week to men at 65 and to women at 60 years of age, if these supplementary payments were abolished.

Dr. Summerskill: In reply to the first part of the Question I will if I may circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a letter which I sent recently to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on this subject.
Out of rather more than 4½ million retirement pensioners and non-contributory old age pensioners, nearly 900,000 are at present having their pensions

supplemented at an annual cost of about £22½ million. The additional cost of granting a pension of 40s. for all men and women on attaining pensionable age would be some £400 million a year immediately, rising to £700 million a year over the next 30 years. Corresponding increases in unemployment, sickness and widowhood benefits would be required and would cost an additional £200 million a year.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask the right hon. Lady two questions? First, has she sent a reply to the Federation, and second, in view of the fact that the Chancellor said there would be a further increase in the cost of living by Christmas, can she hold out no hope that the pensions of the old age pensioners will be increased?

Dr. Summerskill: In reply to the first question, the Federation often communicate with me and, of course, I always reply. In reply to the second question, I think the figures which I have given this afternoon are very big and it is necessary for us to concentrate our available resources on the needs of those pensioners who are worst off. If any pensioner applies to the National Assistance Board, his application will, therefore, be very sympathetically considered.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Lady's reply in regard to supplementary pensioners—900,000, I think she said—and National Assistance mean, in fact, that 900,000 pensioners are being subjected to a means test?

Following is the document:

COPY OF LETTER SENT BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL INSURANCE TO Mr. G. R. CHETWYND, M.P.

20th July,1950.

I return the letter and resolution from the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners' Associations which you sent me recently.

Before I deal with the cost of the National Federation's proposal of £2 a week each, I think I ought to remind you what has been done for the older people in the community and at what cost both in the present and in the future.

As you know, the great majority of present pensioners reached the age of 65 (or 60 in the case of women) before the new National Insurance scheme came into operation, and indeed before the new rates of contributory old age pension became payable in 1946. In these cases all, and in the remaining cases nearly all, of the contributions paid towards their pension were based on an expectation


of 10s. a week for a single man or woman and 20s. for a married couple of whom both were over pension age.

Since September, 1946, however, all those contributory old age pensioners who had retired or had reached the age of 70 (65 for a woman) without retiring have received, not 10s., but 26s. for a single man or woman, and 42s. for a married couple—including, since July, 1948, a couple of whom the husband only is over pensionable age, the wife being under 60 but dependent on him. Men and women now reaching 65 (60) have similarly paid contributions which represent only a fraction of the cost of their pensions, and this will continue to he the case for a great many years, in fact until the present rates of contribution have been paid throughout the period from school leaving age to pensionable age. In addition, large numbers of persons have been brought into insurance who in the past would have had no cover of this kind, and they can qualify for pensions at the full rate after only ten years' insurance. This places an additional burden on the general taxpayer, and you will understand the magnitude of the problem when I tell you that the cost of subsidising National Insurance benefits at the present rates out of taxation at the beginning of the existing scheme was of the order of £130,000,000 a year and by 1978 it will rise to about £420,000,000 a year, nearly all of the increase being caused by the increasing load of retirement pensions which cannot be avoided since the proportion of old people in the community is rising steadily every year. At the beginning of the century there were only ten people over the present pensionable ages (65 for men, 60 for women) for every hundred people of working age; at the present time there are twenty; in another ten years there will be twenty-three, in twenty years there will be twenty-six and in thirty years' time there will be thirty.

With the best will in the world towards pensioners, and a full appreciation of their difficulties, any suggestion which seriously increases the cost of retirement pension must of necessity be weighed with the utmost care against the cost to the contributor and to the tax-payer both present and future. The immediate additional cost of the proposals put forward by the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners' Associations, which, as I understand it, is that there should he a universal pension of £2 a week from 65 (men) and 60 (women) would be just over £400,000.000 a year. If this additional cost were to be borne in the same way as existing pensions under the Act, the contributions payable in respect of employed men would have to be increased by about 2s. 5d. a week, and for self-employed and non-employed men by about 2s. 3d. a week. After allowing for these increased contributions the additional amount to be found from general taxation would be little short of £300,000,000 a year. The burden falling upon the general tax-payer would thus be increased to more than £400,000,000 a year now and by 1978 the growing proportion of old people would raise it to more than £700,000,000.

But even that is not all: it is a cardinal principle of the National Insurance scheme that the basic rates of all benefits provided in replacement of earnings shall be the same.

The cost of corresponding increases in other benefits would add about another £200,000,000 a year to the figures quoted in the preceding paragraph.

I am afraid that at the present time we cannot contemplate incurring expenditure of anything like this order. We must make the best use of our resources by concentrating any extra payments on those cases where there would otherwise be hardship and as you know we have recently increased the scale rates of National Assistance with this end in view.

E. SUMMERSKILI

Assistance

Mr. Summers: asked The Minister of National Insurance (1) what proportion of the payments made to persons starting work and applying for assistance pending payment of wages are subsequently recovered from the applicant;
(2) what instructions have been issued or what policy is adopted to determine whether payments made to persons starting work and applying for assistance pending payment of wages shall subsequently be recovered; and what steps are taken to find out if a temporary advance has been granted by the employer.

Dr. Summerskill: Before granting such assistance, the Board's officers satisfy themselves, by inquiry from employers if necessary, whether an advance of wages will be made. The Board are empowered to recover assistance granted in such circumstances to meet urgent need only in so far as payments cover days beyond the end of a period, generally seven to 10 days from the start of work. Assistance paid for days beyond the prescribed period is ordinarily recovered, unless repayment would cause hardship. Details are not available, but the proportion of recoveries is small.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked The Minister of National Insurance if she will consider revising the regulations governing the award of National Assistance so as to help beneficiaries, particularly old age pensioners, to meet the cost of living.

Dr. Summerskill: I must remind my hon. Friend that improvements in the scales of National Assistance approved by this House came into force as recently as June of this year.

Mr. Roberts: Will not the Minister give an assurance that, in view of the probable rise in the cost of living during


the next months, this matter will be constantly kept under review and sympathetically dealt with? Further, is she aware that, although she has given instructions that administratively her officers should deal sympathetically with applications, unless the scales are revised it will be impossible for them to do so?

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind my hon. Friend that officers of the National Assistance Board are allowed to exercise very wide discretion.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a tendency now to restrict the discretion of the area officers in dealing with assistance cases and to refer their decisions to the regional district officers before communications are made to hon. Members?

Dr. Summerskill: I will certainly look into that if my lion. Friend will give me a case that he has in mind.

Old Age Pensioners

Mr. Bossom: asked The Minister of National Insurance what she is going to do for the old age pensioners, whose pension has been and will be, in consequence of the cost of living going still higher, steadily decreasing in purchasing power.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) on this subject on 17th October last, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister explain how these rather unfortunate people can get any help without going through a means test?

Dr. Summerskill: All the applications of the people the hon. Gentleman is referring to are considered very carefully, and I can assure him that the examination that is made bears no resemblance at all to the means test with which he, I am sure, is very familiar.

Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister mind explaining what it is if it is not a means test?

Dr. Summerskill: It is a needs test, which is different. [Interruption.] If I may supplement that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly. As the hon. Gentleman shook his head violently, let me

say that needs and means are entirely different in this respect, that the actual needs of an old age pensioner, such as domestic assistance, a contribution for laundry, a contribution for window cleaning—all these needs—are taken into consideration.

Mr. Hamilton: Could my right hon. Friend tell us who was the leading Tory who said two or three years ago that a 26s. a week pension was premature?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Rearmament Programme (Manpower)

Mr. Donner: asked The Minister of of Labour what steps have been taken to divert under-employed labour in various factories to those factories urgently in need of manpower for rearmament purposes.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am in consultation with the two sides of industry as to the best means of meeting the labour needs of the rearmament programme as these develop. With regard to workers who may be under-employed and who wish to transfer to work on the rearmament programme, they will be helped to do so if they apply to an employment exchange.

Mr. Donner: As some armament and machine tool manufacturers are seriously short of labour, will the Government consider introducing some incentive scheme, including, perhaps, the provision of "prefabs.", to such under-employed people?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman asks me what I am doing to divert unemployed labour. Well, I have no power to take a man out of one job and push him into another.

Mr. Donner: Surely the Government have power to make essential jobs attractive by providing such incentives?

Brigadier Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop diverting unemployed to Portsmouth, and will he, if necessary, divert some of our unemployed in Portsmouth to where they can get work?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will write to me and explain what he is trying to tell the House. I will give it attention.

Men Over 50

Sir Harold Roper: asked The Minister of Labour what success the Special Appointments Branch has had in finding employment for men of over 50 years of age, particularly disabled men, who, in the past, have held responsible positions.

Mr. Isaacs: During the last 12 months the Appointments Offices have placed 6,987 men in employment, including 503 disabled men. Statistics of placings by age groups are not available, but the Appointments Offices take special pains to assist men over 50. I should like to renew the appeals I have frequently made to employers to consider these older men on their merits, when they apply or are put forward for posts of managerial, senior executive or professional type.

Sir H. Roper: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to bear in mind the frustration that is felt by many actively minded men and women, who are past the prime of life, through their inability to obtain employment?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes. There is foundation for what the hon. Gentleman says. Here are men of very high capacity, anxious indeed to do a good job, whose only fault is that they were born before a certain date. I am perfectly confident, from experience in other cases, that if employers will give these men a chance they will find them excellent servants.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Has my right hon. Friend found that industries suffering from a shortage of labour are more willing to take these men than industries already fully manned?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think we could say that. The fact is that in many cases it is a firm's pension scheme that makes it hesitate before taking on these men.

Sir H. Williams: As the Government are the worst offenders in getting rid of people over a certain age, will the right hon. Gentleman send his answers to the Treasury?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman is as right in that assumption as in most others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let me apologise to the House for putting my foot in it again. The hon. Gentleman is

wrong. The Government are not bad offenders. I can assure the House that the Government give every possible facility in their own services, and in those in which they have influence, to encourage the use of these older men.

Lodging Allowances

Mr. Wood: asked The Minister of Labour in what circumstances lodging allowances can be paid to workers compelled to take employment away from their homes.

Mr. Isaacs: There is no compulsion, but a worker who has dependants to maintain may be paid a lodging allowance if he accepts approved employment away from home. I am sending the hon. Member two leaflets setting out the arrangements in detail.

Mr. Wood: In view of the fact that some people have been unable to take up employment because of the non-payment of these allowances, will the Minister consider revising his regulations so that these people can get into work, the work can be done, and, incidentally, some money can be saved?

Mr. Isaacs: I should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman would send me such cases as he has in mind, because the whole purpose of this allowance is to put men in employment at long distances away where their services are badly needed.

Sir W. Wakefield: Are such lodging allowances subject to Income Tax deduction?

Cornwall

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked The Minister of Labour to state to the nearest available date the number of unemployed in Cornwall.

Mr. Isaacs: One thousand, six hundred and ninety-one males and 782 females at 16th October.

Fishing Industry

Mr. D. Marshall: asked The Minister of Labour to state to the nearest available date the number of unemployed in the fishing industry.

Mr. Isaacs: Four thousand, three hundred and ninety-nine at 16th October.

Sickness

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Labour if he will set up a committee to inquire into the present high rate of sickness in industry, and make recommendations as to how this drain upon the national production may be reduced.

Mr. Isaacs: Sickness absence in industry which is not above normal is mainly due to common ailments not of an occupational character. I do not think it would be useful to appoint a special committee to consider this subject.

Mr. Baker White: Is the Minister aware that on any one day of the year the average number of persons away from work is 960,000, and that means a loss of 250 million days per year? Does not he think that that situation needs a little inquiring into?

Mr. Isaacs: If it is a matter of sickness unconnected with industry, it is not a matter under my jurisdiction. If it is a matter of sickness arising out of some industrial trouble, it is a matter which I have to investigate; but in that sphere there is not a substantial amount of sickness.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Will the Minister draw the attention of the Minister of Health to those figures, as, clearly, the housing shortage contributes to them?

Dispute, Hendon

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Labour if he has any statement to make on the stoppage of work, which started on 19th October, at Duple Motor Bodies, Limited, of Hendon.

Mr. Isaacs: On 1st November a dispute was reported to me by the company under the provisions of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order, 1940, and I am in communication with the unions concerned. This stoppage of work involving 1,000 men arises out of the dismissal of a number of workers on grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Has the Minister any evidence to show that this is a further case of disruption of industrial production by Communists.

Mr. Isaacs: I have no observations to make on that case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

University Entrants

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet reached a decision regarding the entry into universities of Service men whose date of release has been postponed.

Mr. Isaacs: I assume the Question relates to entry into universities in October, 1951. It has now been agreed that early releases will be granted to men who had arranged to enter universities then but would be prevented from doing so by the extension of their service. Details of the method of application will be published later.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can these details be conveyed to the men in the Forces, or who are likely to go into the Forces, and who are, of course, most interested in this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: I should think the information will be published.

Call-up

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement as to the liability to call-up for training and in an emergency of men aged less than 26 years who were in reserved occupations during the late war.

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour why the liability for military service is greater for a man who served in the last war than one who did not, when both are of military age, physically fit and not reserved.

Mr. Isaacs: Men who were reserved in the last war who are now under the age of 26 are liable to be called up under the National Service Acts. In 1946, however, it was announced in a White Paper (Cmd. 6831) that men born before 1929 who were not called up before the end of 1946 would, with certain exceptions, not be called up. Their liability is accordingly not being enforced.
These men are not trained soldiers and could not be called up for immediate use in an emergency like the Z Reservists. The intention is that in the event of an emergency they would be called up in their age groups under whatever arrangements were operating at the time.

Mr. Bevins: If the liability for service, of non-Reservists is less than that of Reservists, which I think was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, solely because non-Reservists have not had military training, what objection is there to the right hon. Gentleman arranging for them to have military training now?

Mr. Isaacs: Because we might find that some of these men are somewhere up to the age of 50. There was a very exhaustive comb-out, and these men were told, "Stop where you are, you will not be wanted." I think they would have a legitimate grievance if they were told to do military service now after they were willing to do it earlier and were not allowed to.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Question to which he has given an answer relates solely to men under 26?

Mr. Isaacs: The answer I gave relates only to men under 26, but the general principle covers men of all ages.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ORDER (PROSECUTIONS)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister when he decided that the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to consider prosecutions under the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order should in practice be transferred to the Attorney-General.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It has become the practice for the question of prosecutions in such cases to be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. No particular date can be assigned to the commencement of this practice.

Sir J. Mellor: Would the Prime Minister agree that the Minister of Labour and the Attorney-General both claimed responsibility, at least until 19th September, and is that the reason why, until the recent gas strike prosecution, neither of them did anything?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am replying to the Question asked by the hon. Member. The practice has grown up of leaving this to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEFENCE (SECURITY)

Mr. Somerset de Chair: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing interdependence of scientific research in the atomic field between this country, the other countries of the Commonwealth and the United States of America, he will appoint a Cabinet Committee to review the whole system of security in relation to the development of atomic science.

The Prime Minister: I am already devoting particular attention to this question, in consultation with the other Ministers concerned.

Mr. de Chair: In view of the unfortunate stress introduced into Anglo-American relations recently over the cases of Fuchs and Pontecorvo, would the Prime Minister consider suggesting to the United States of America and Canada the setting up of a joint security board, a three-power security board, to harmonise the screening of atom scientists and the exchange of information about their work on both sides of the Atlantic?

The Prime Minister: I do not think a board is necessary, because there is the closest working between the organisations on both sides of the Atlantic.

Captain Crookshank: While it is satisfactory to know that The Prime Minister is looking into this himself, would he also be good enough to look at the replies by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to Questions yesterday on the subject of screening, which were very unsatisfactory?

Sir R. Glyn: asked The Prime Minister whether he will consider increasing the authority of security officers in the field attached to establishments of special importance from the point of view of National Defence, but under the administrative control of various Ministries, so that uniform regulations may be made with powers at least equal to those held by these officers during the last war.

The Prime Minister: My information does not suggest that security officers require further powers; and, in view of the wide variety of establishments to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I doubt whether it would be practicable or desirable to impose a greater uniformity of


practice. I am, however, asking the Ministers responsible to give special attention to the need for vigilance regarding the security of these establishments.

Sir R. Glyn: As the efforts made by Communists pay no attention to lepartmental boundaries, may I ask The Prime Minister if he will consider whether it might be advantageous that security measures on this side should not be restricted by departmental regulations?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am doing my best to ensure that that shall not happen.

Mr. Shepherd: asked The Prime Minister what inquiries he has made into the efficiency of the screening methods of M.I.5; and whether he is satisfied that these give the maximum possible security to the nation.

The Prime Minister: I have myself made inquiries into this from time to time and I shall give continuing attention to the possibility of adapting the methods in use to meet changing needs and circumstances.

Mr. Churchill: My point is a matter of wording. I should like to ask The Prime Minister whether, in answering this Question, he is treating the word "screening" as meaning "sifting" or as meaning "sheltering," because there is a great difference between the two. I looked it up in the dictionary, and I was astonished to find that though "sheltering" is the normal sense of the word, there is, dating from the 17th century, one example of "screening" being used in the sense of "sifting"; but it is important that we should clear up the interpretation of this hard-worked word.

The Prime Minister: It seems that in the process of recent years we must have returned to the 17th century interpretation of the word. That is how it is used today.

Mr. Shepherd: Is The Prime Minister aware that there is a very uneasy feeling in the country that the kind of danger we are now facing is very different from the danger we faced in other circumstances; and there is a fear that the existing organisation is not equal to the new circumstances? Could the right hon. Gentleman give a real assurance on that point?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware that there is some uneasiness, but in these matters, while we have to take the utmost precautions, we also have to preserve the general conditions of the rights of the individual and the liberty of the subject in this country. We cannot employ, and we will not employ, the kind of methods employed in totalitarian countries.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is The Prime Minister aware that we are now spending over £3 million on the so-called Secret Service, and does not he think the House should have an opportunity of discussing this?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: In view of the replies made yesterday by colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman that the main screening took place in 1943, when circumstances were very different, would he look into the question of whether rescreening, now that circumstances have changed, should be instituted?

The Prime Minister: Because at a certain time there has been what has been called "screening" in the case of a person engaged in high security work, it does not mean that care is not taken thereafter from time to time to follow up any possible danger. I should not like it to be thought that necessarily because someone had been "screened" at a certain time, no steps are taken thereafter. They are, from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIMBLESS EX-SERVICE MEN (PENSIONS)

Mr. Perkins: asked The Prime Minister whether, in view of the small increases in the pensions of limbless ex-Service men since 1919, compared with the rise in the cost of living, he will set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the pension position of all ex-Service men.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I should not feel able to recommend to His Majesty that a Royal Commission be appointed for this purpose. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to the hon. Members for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) and Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) on 17th October. There is very


full information available about the pension position of ex-Service men and I see no reason for an inquiry of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to increasing the allowance of foreign currency to British tourists during the Festival of Britain, and so make available to dollar spenders hotel and other accommodation which would otherwise be occupied.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. The Festival of Britain is for the people of this country as much as for visitors from overseas, and it is not the Government's policy to encourage anyone to miss it.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. May I, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, ask your guidance? We have only reached Question 50, and the Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer have not been reached at all. He is second on the list on Tuesdays and third on Thursdays. Can you use your influence with the Ministries to see that we have shorter replies, so that Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be reached, in view of the importance of Exchequer Questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It has nothing to do with me. All that I can do is to point out, once again, that we can have lots of Questions and very few supplementaries or very few Questions and lots of supplementaries. There is no getting round that.

DEBATES (CALLING OF MEMBERS)

Mrs. Braddock: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to ask for your Ruling, or assistance, in a matter which is causing Members on the back benches on my side of the House a great deal of concern. It is with reference—and I hope that you will allow me to put this matter in the way I desire—to the peculiar phrase known as "catching the Speaker's eye."

I want to know exactly what is the situation, because if the method of catching the Speaker's eye is to come to you and to make reference to the fact that a person desires to speak, or if a person has to put his or her name down and you select the names, that is quite all right; but if the situation is that there is some other way of catching the Speaker's eye, most of us would like to know exactly what is this method.
Yesterday, three lady Members on this side of the House remained in their seats continuously, without moving, from 2.30 p.m. until the Division was called at 10 o'clock. The lady Members do not desire any privileges, but at the same time they desire to be considered in the methods adopted to catch the Speaker's eye. I should like to know whether there is any other method of someone being able to arrange that you should catch somebody's eye or that they should catch your eye—we all know what that procedure is—so that we can deal with the position in our own individual ways and see whether one section can be more effective in catching the Speaker's eye than some sections seem to have been in this House for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Lady very much. I can assure her that there is no other way. I look round, and I decide whom to call. Sometimes I know beforehand who wants to get up, but very often I choose at the last minute, because I think that may help the Debate. As regards the lady Members we did have two in the Debate on Friday——

Mrs. Braddock: One.

Mr. Speaker: —and we did not have any yesterday, but I warned the House very carefully beforehand that we probably would not have time for very many back bench speeches. We only had six yesterday, and I suspect that we shall get even fewer today; so the chances are not very good. All I know is that during the first four days of the Debate there were 59 back bench speeches and 11 Front Bench speeches, so that the back benchers, on the whole, I think, had a fair amount of the time available for taking part in the business of the House.

Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order. Can we eliminate entirely the


method of putting one's name down in the Speaker's Secretary's office, or, alternatively, of giving it in at the Speaker's Chair?

Mr. Speaker: I would not resent that in the least, but the trouble is that hon. Members are anxious to send their names in, and I cannot stop them doing so.

Mrs. Braddock: I am quite satisfied with your comment, Mr. Speaker, because I think that it means that neither the Whips nor anyone else have the opportunity of deciding who shall, through you, take part in the various debates.

Mr. Speaker: I use my own judgment. Sometimes I may be told that Mr. So-and-so is an expert on some subject; but I use my own judgment and do not take orders from the Whips on either side.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

AMENDMENTS ON GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

No notices of Amendments on going into Committee of Supply to be given until the first Thursday in February.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[SIXTH DAY]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [31st October]:
That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Kenyon.]

Question again proposed.

COST OF LIVING

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Macdonald: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at the end, to add,
But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no reference to the rising cost of living and makes no adequate proposals to relieve the growing burden of increasing prices on consumers, particularly on the lowest income groups.
During the last few days, the House has shown in this Debate on the reply to the Gracious Speech its awareness of the urgency and gravity of the increase in the cost of living. The discussions in the House are a reflection of the fact that all over the country people are worried and feel insecure about this question. They realise that the new situation created by rearmament has probably aggravated the steady increase that they have noticed in the costs of their necessities of life. They read day after day of the fantastic rise in the price of raw materials—wool, cotton, tin, rubber and so on.
A few months ago, it seemed, to most of us, that our economic recovery had reached a stage where we could allay the feeling of insecurity which had been with us since the war, and the possibility of another major economic crisis, with its renewed austerity, seemed to have receded. A welcome move towards decontrol had been made, and, generally speaking, the country was at last beginning to feel that, in spite of its severe


housing shortages, we were all getting back to a fuller life, provided we could keep the cost of living in check.
May I take this opportunity of congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his first great speech since he was elevated to his present high office, and on giving the House a remarkable review of our economic problems. No one will dispute his technical understanding of the situation, but it is disturbing that he appeared to have no fresh policies to offer to the House to combat the inflationary dangers which at present confront us, and will confront us still more in the near future.
Let us examine our situation to assess its strength and its weak points, as we must beware, on the one hand, of those fatalists who insist that we are moving into a war economy, and that there is no escape from siege-like restrictions and a serious fall in living standards, and, on the other, of those people who believe that a reasonable degree of rearmament is beyond our resources if we are to maintain our present standard of living.
Let us took therefore at our productive potential and the likely calls which are to be made upon it during the coming year. On the assets side of the balance sheet, we should not under-estimate our strength. Firstly, our gold and dollar reserves have doubled during the past year, and for the first time since the 1930's we have a surplus on our balance of payments. Secondly, our production is increasing satisfactorily, although not as greatly as some claims have been made for it from the Government benches. There is no doubt, however, that productivity is increasing, notably in the motor vehicle industry, in engineering, in steel and in chemicals, upon which the main impact of our rearmament will fall. It would not seem to be an over-estimate to put the prospective addition to our national output, in real terms for the next 12 months, at some additional £400 million. Furthermore, devaluation has to a great extent assisted the export of many of our manufactured products.

Mr. Logan: Is it in order for an hon. Member to keep reading his speech?

Mr. Speaker: I always deprecate it. We are not supposed to read speeches, but

we can use notes, and copious notes at that. It really is an abuse of the Rules and a mistake to read speeches. which, I find, happens too often.

Mr. Logan: If a speech is to be read. I submit that it would be better if we could have advance copies.

Mr. Churchill: Does that Rule also apply to The Prime Minister?

Mr. Macdonald: I apologise to the House for the need to refer to notes more than is perhaps usual, but I am dealing with a very intricate subject. It is a very vital subject, and I want to cover a great deal of ground in as short a time as possible, so that as many Members who wish to take part in the Debate, and can catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will be able to do so. I ask, therefore, for your indulgence in the matter, and I hope that I shall not have to ask for it again in any other speeches I have to make.
We have had in the last year a most notable recovery. It would not seem to be an over-estimate to put the productive increase to our national income at £400 million for this year. Thirdly, devaluation has to a great extent assisted the export of many of our manufactured products, although when dealing with the other side of the ledger, we must also mention its ill-effects. The whole problem turns upon our ability to increase productivity. What are the increased demands on that increased productivity of approximately £400 million, likely to be?
Firstly, there is rearmament, which we understand is likely to cost approximately £400 million this year, in addition to the £800 million we have put aside for our Armed Forces. Obviously, as we cannot use our full increase in productivity purely for rearmament, it is essential for us to come to some arrangement with America whereby she will grant us as much help as possible in this rearmament programme. I believe that America's contribution to us could be in the form of equipment, and, as we shall be United Nations forces, it would seem to be essential that we should use standardised equipment as far as possible.
No country in the world is more capable of producing large quantities of standardised equipment than America, particularly if she has the benefit of the combined brains in armament production


of the scientists of the United Nations. Some types of armament would, undoubtedly, have to be made in this country, but by America providing practically all armament requirements, it would save a very big switch-over of manpower by us from some of our export and more important industries to war production, and therefore cause less dislocation in our vigorous attempt to reach economic stability.
Further, through O.E.E.C., or by direct negotiation with America, it is essential for ourselves, and all European countries who have to purchase the bulk of their raw materials from abroad, to come to some agreement with America, by which this wild scramble for wool, rubber, tin and other metals is kept in check. By a purchasing arrangement between the United Nations, the ridiculously high figures now being obtained for these commodities could be substantially reduced. A general agreement between the United Nations on this matter would prevent the likelihood of a serious shortage in raw materials cancelling out our efforts to increase productivity.
The second demand upon our increased productivity is the wage increases for the lower paid workers, which must be considered and, wherever possible, granted. These amount, I understand, to approximately £200 million, and it is reasonably certain to believe that if these rates are granted those skilled workers now earning slightly higher wage rates, will, in turn, ask for these differentials to be maintained. This would, of course, result in a far greater strain upon our resources. It is impossible to expect the wage freeze to continue much longer with rapidly rising retail prices; as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, he anticipates that by December the retail price index may be 116, and we know that the T.U.C. has stated that if and when it reaches 118, they can no longer retain the wage freeze.
The third demand is our export need to meet the increased cost of raw materials, which necessitates our exporting £250 million extra. Our export trade has shown a most encouraging rise for some time past, but this rise will need not only to be maintained, but increased, if our raw materials cost us an increased amount and we wish to balance our trade receipts. Fourthly, there is the vital need to help

the old age pensions, and others, on a very low fixed pension income. By this statement, I mean the old age pensioners, the widows and disabled pensioners, each of whom live on £3 per week or less, and we must also help all children up to school leaving age. In the case of pensioners on £2 per week or less, I find it impossible to appreciate how they can live today with the high cost of everything that they need. Fifthly, there is the capital investment programme, such as houses, power stations, oil refineries and so on.
Now, what remedies can we suggest that the Government should take to increase productivity? I will put these under seven separate heads, some of which will be considered as highly controversial. Many of them, the House will recognise, do not represent vote-catching methods, because they will be extremely unpopular. However, I feel that it should be said. I believe that, in order to increase productivity, we must have a far greater feeling of partnership in industry between capital and labour. This can be achieved by co-ownership. During the last 10 years, as I have been interested in this subject, I have had the privilege of going through a large number of factories in the country, and in no case have I found, where the scheme is a generous one and well organised, and where the idea is continually re-sold to the workers, that the increase in output has been less than 6 per cent.—in some cases it has been very much higher.
We have had the examples for 60 years of the voluntary schemes introduced by people, such as Mr. Theodore Taylor, of J. and T. Taylor and Co., or the South Metropolitan Gas Company, and many others. As the House will be aware, J. and T. Taylor have distributed to their workers some £2¼ million from profits in the last 60 years in a highly competitive industry. The South Metropolitan Gas Company, in the same time, distributed approximately the same amount, and in neither case have these companies ever had one day or, possibly, one hour's labour dispute.
The Liberal Party has hoped that the industrialists would follow the examples of these and other' companies which I could have mentioned, who have proved the value of co-partnership in industry. But owing to short-sightedness or greed on the


part of many employers, and to incomprehensible opposition by some trade union officials to the schemes, there are only 2 per cent. of the working population of this country today who benefit from such schemes, after 60 years of trial and error on a voluntary basis.
Therefore, we suggest to the Chancellor that as co-partnership and co-ownership in industry form one of the corner stones —they are not the whole solution to our problem—to a far greater industrial partnership, he should be prepared to give a tax inducement to those firms which are prepared to bring into force generous profit sharing schemes on behalf of their workers; and if, after a period of trial of that inducement, he finds that it has had very little effect upon the industrialists, we believe that it must be brought in by legislation.
The Liberal Party have examined this question of legislation. Compulsion is anathema to the Liberal Party, but we believe that this is such an important national development, if we are to give the worker far greater status in industry and a far greater interest in it than he possesses today, that it should become a national matter. Had we not brought in by legislation the Factory Acts how many of the factories today would have the present protective devices for their workers? How many would have had the washing facilities and other equipment that the workers need? They might by this time have had them but it would have taken a great many years more than it has taken. Therefore, let us give inducement an opportunity, but we believe that inducement will fail and that there will be no alternative to legislation, and we consider it to be so important that that must be undertaken.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am interested in what the hon. Member has said about getting the confidence of both sides of industry, and on that I think that both sides of the House would agree. I remember raising this issue in 1947 in connection with the Companies Act and the Macmillan Report. I think that all the cards of profit should be on the table so that the trade union movement can see clearly how much profit is earned in industry. That is a great need, and I believe that we should have legislation to

that effect, which has been demanded for many years.

Mr. Macdonald: I agree. We hear raised from time to time from the other side of the House the question why, if we have a wage freeze, there should not be a dividend freeze. That is a perfectly fair question to ask. I am against a wage freeze and I am against a profits freeze also because I believe that a profits freeze freezes incentive, initiative and efficiency in our industrial drive. I believe that profits should be unlimited—I underline unlimited—provided that they are not made by price rings or monopoly, that they are made in fair competition and are shared generously with those who have created them.
To limit dividends would, as I have said, be to limit efficiency and initiative. I have noticed with great pleasure some recent statements by Members on the other side of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, speaking at Colchester on 19th May, suggested that the return on capital should be limited by law and that surpluses should be divided fairly between workers and employers. That was reported in the "News Chronicle." Mr. Jack Tanner, President of the A.E.U., speaking to the national committee of his union on 12th June, suggested that dividends should be limited by law and that any additional surplus should be divided fairly between workers and employers. That was reported in "The Times."
This is not quite what we on these Benches want, but at any rate it is beginning to seep through. Here lies an opportunity for a closer relationship between labour and capital than has existed in the past. The Government of India are introducing legislation for compulsory profit sharing in the iron and steel, textile, cigarette and jute industries. In North Rhine Westphalia, two of the parties have decided to bring in by Government decree profit-sharing in their industries. In Norway, Sweden and Holland there is legislation on profits which is apparently of a temporary character, but this practice is growing in various parts of the world, and I hope that this House will not be laggard in realising that here is real progress.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member quoted the president of the


A.E.U. Can he at the same time give the House any instance of any representative engineering employer being of the same opinion?

Mr. Macdonald: Is the hon. Member asking me whether any engineering employer is a sharer of profits?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member expressed a belief in profit sharing. In view of the present excessive profits in the engineering industry, the engineers consider that they ought to have something, and that is the reason why their president expressed that view. This is a two-way street. The engineering employers are represented on the other side of the House. The hon. Member will vote with them tonight.

Mr. Macdonald: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is not that I cannot quote a case but I have not brought with me the list of firms concerned. That list includes many more than 1,000 concerns of which I know at the moment, and there are probably many more. I will lcok through that list and will undertake to inform the hon. Member, in writing if necessary, whether there are any engineering companies on that list.

Mr. John Grimston: Is not Lord Nuffield a proud case of an engineering employer who has a profit-sharing scheme?

Mr. Pannell: I worked for Lord Nuffield for a period, and he is one of the bitterest anti-trade unionists in the country.

Mr. Speaker: It would be just as well to get on with the subject of the Debate, omitting these side issues. We should get on with the moving of an Amendment. I have not yet heard any reference to it.

Mr. Macdonald: I turn to my second proposal for helping productivity. Though we have all welcomed a reduction of working hours to a 40-hour week, it may be necessary, during the period of rearmament, which may mean the next three years or unfortunately longer, for us to ask ourselves whether we can any longer afford the 40-hour week. I believe that if this country is to increase its productivity it must increase its working hours by an extra half-hour per day for five days per week, that is two and a half

hours per week, and that there should be no extra payment for that time. I believe that is one of the few ways of getting greater productivity and a cheaper cost of production. I believe it should be tried. if necessary, we may have to work still longer, but let us hope we can limit the increase to that.
The third point I suggest is that we should lower still further the Income Tax on overtime rates for those earning up to £500 per annum. I was very pleased that the Chancellor's predecessor reduced this rate in his last Budget, but I believe that it can be made still lower with very beneficial effects to productivity.
Fourthly, we must increase the labour force. We are undoubtedly experiencing a shortage of labour. All of us, on all sides of the House, welcome the full employment policy, and we Liberals, particularly, are pleased to see the success that has attended the Government's efforts in this matter. There is, however, a valuable source of labour which we are not using at present, and which can increase our productive effort very considerably. I refer to the group of people who we describe as old age pensioners. I have stated before in this House that I believe that their nomenclature is wrong and that they should be considered as long service pensioners. Psychologically, when we speak of them as old age pensioners, we think of them as fit only for the scrap heap.
In a great many instances these men and women are able and willing to work for a number of years beyond 65 for a man, and 60 for a woman. Provided that they are medically examined each year to ensure that they are fit to carry on, I believe that they should be permitted to remain in their work without losing their pensions. In other words, I mean that a contributory pensioner who, if he retires, would obtain his pension of 26s. per week at 65—or, if a woman, at 60—would not, as at the present time, lose the whole of his pension until he is 70 if he or she earned £2 6s. per week or more, over and above their pension. This is one of the greatest disincentives to people to continuing in their work.
Next is the question of the Monopolies Commission. which was created to deal with the activities of price rings and monopolies generally. It has sat for a


year without producing a single report. This state of affairs should be remedied by strengthening the Commission and giving it a real part to play in cost-of -living policy. The next point is the problem of the network of protective tariffs which exist throughout the world and which are a fetter to the increased circulation of trade. I hope that the Torquay Conference, which is now meeting, will achieve substantial success in reducing these tariff barriers and thereby assist in reducing the cost of living.
I also believe that a high-powered expert committee should be formed to investigate Government expenditure throughout each of the Government Departments and each of the nationalised industries. I cannot tell the House where specific economies of any size can be made in the various Departments or nationalised industries, but in a Budget of Government expenditure which reaches approximately £4,000 million the services of a committee of this kind would surely be worth while, not in acting as a Geddes axe but in being able to effect substantial economies. These economies should then be passed on, in a graduated reduction in taxation, towards further increasing incentive and productive effort.
Finally, I hope that the Government will not act upon the proposal of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who suggested another capital levy. If such a levy were imposed, it would be disastrous to large-scale national savings, the lack of which contributes very much to the inflationary pressure. Who among us is likely to save if he anticipates that from time to time the Government will raid his savings by further capital levies? I will add a little note on National Savings. In the financial year ended 31st March, 1950, withdrawals of National Savings exceeded new savings by almost £68 million. The level of withdrawals was £67 million more than in the previous year. In 1948–49, small savers put into savings £37 million more than they took out.
In concluding this long speech I would explain that I have tried to suggest that the outlook for the cost of living is grim indeed, if we are to continue to rely solely on the Government's negative policy of piling on taxes and controls, and of

bludgeoning the economy in a vain attempt to include in it a great arms drive. We shall get a certain increase in production automatically in the coming year, but it will be inadequate to meet the claims likely to be imposed upon it by the new defence bill, by demands for higher wages and by the need to increase exports to pay for dearer imports.
We must, therefore, first seek all ways of increasing production still further, and to the extent that we do so stiffer controls and compulsions will not be necessary. A reduction in Government expenditure as a result of a thoroughgoing investigation by a strong ad-hoc committee may enable taxation to be reduced slightly at points where it is most likely to call for the maximum additional effort. Longer hours, a lifting of compulsory retirement rules and of penalties upon the pensions of those who continue in work, plus a vigorous attack upon monopolistic practices and a world movement to break down barriers to trade between nations, together with a profit-sharing scheme throughout industry would, I believe, enable Britain to take re-armament in her stride without undue strain on the cost of living. It would create a far greater feeling of unity in the common effort than exists today.
Unfortunately, I have not seen any attempt in the Chancellor's able and quite courageous speech to face up to some of the sacrifices which we must make, both in leisure and in money, if we are to overcome this grave menace of a rapidly increasing cost of living.

Mr. Logan: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may I ask him whether I understood him correctly to say that he would add half an hour a day without any increase of pay, and whether that is to be applicable to underpaid labour?

Mr. Macdonald: I believe that there should be half an hour's extra work per day for the five-day working week by all, including the under-paid worker. I believe that measures must be taken to meet the wage claims of the under-paid workers. Every class in this country has to face the sacrifices of rearmament. We must all do what we can to help those who are worse off than ourselves, because we all have to help in this productive effort.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to second the Amendment.
If I may, I will read out the Amendment, which regrets
that the Gracious Speech contains no reference to the rising cost of living and makes no adequate proposals to relieve the growing burden of increasing prices on consumers, particularly on the lowest income groups.
In seconding this Amendment I wish to draw attention to a factor in the situation which I believe is most important and must be taken into account in considering this problem. It is that this is not a temporary emergency but that the conditions which we have to face are likely to continue for a number of years and that that must affect the remedies which we can apply. Even if there were a case to be made out for a capital levy it would not be suitable because we cannot successfully impose a capital levy year after year. The consequences would be disastrous to our economy. We have to consider remedies which would be applicable to more than one year.
We have to think not only of the day to day purchases which have gone up, but, of, for example, the young couples who are getting married. If they have been successful in getting houses to live in, they have to furnish them. That is a very heavy burden. We have to think of additions to the family, which means buying articles necessary when the babies arrive. We have to think also of the need to replace household articles. After the restrictions of the war years and the shortages of the post-war period, the need for replacement is greater than normal. Moreover, in the "bad old days" before the war many people, owing to unemployment, were unable to buy the things that were necessary. Many examples have been given of increased costs. I have a list here, with which I do not propose to burden the House. I have collected items from time to time at meetings which I have held in my constituency. I hold periodical meetings for women only, and I also hold the usual "surgery."
I have made a list. I have been surprised at the number of items about which housewives of all classes are genuinely concerned. Let me consider one or two examples. Frequently I hear about towels. I have checked the figures with my local

chamber of trade. Utility towels, which one can buy for 5s. 1d., could have been purchased before the war, I am told, for about 1s. That is not the only trouble. If one cannot get hold of this utility towel one may be able to get an almost identical article for 7s. 11d. That has also been checked by the president of my local chamber of trade. I have also been asked about dusters. Before the war one could buy them for about 6d., but in June the cost was about 1s. 3d. and now it has risen to 1s. 7½d. and in some cases 2s. It is not original to produce an article in the House but I have been asked to draw the attention of hon. Members to this floorcloth which I have in my hand. I am told that this was about 6d. before the war, but in August it was 1s. 10d., a month later 2s. 1d., and now it is 2s. 2d. Bedspreads cost 3s. 11d. to 4s. 11d. in 1939 and today the utility price is 35s. to £2. So one could go on.
In a leading article in the "Manchester Guardian" on 4th November attention was drawn to the problem of the price index. It is the most difficult thing in the world to persuade the ordinary housewife that the cost of living has not gone up more than is suggested by the cost of living index. I think this is a fair comment. It says:
The official index surely understates the impact of the higher prices on family budgets. While it no longer includes the price of such Victorian necessities as iron bedsteads and tallow candles, it does register a sharp fall when the gravity of beer is raised, and it does not reflect a rise in the price of sausages if their meat content increases at the same time. These methods are quite logical; but they would be more convincing if a man could ask for two-thirds of a pint of beer in the public house and make up the rise with water. He would then have something similar to last April's glass of beer for the same price.
The article continues:
The index makes no allowance for the declining quality of many articles it includes. Household bills have certainly risen more than the official two per cent. in 12 months.
Finally, there is this comment:
The pressure falls"—
particularly heavily—
on the low paid labourers, the pensioners, and particularly on the salaried middle class.
We have to think of all classes and it is right to mention the middle-class. It may be that they have different standards than others and that they regard as necessities some things which others do not regard


as necessities, but, after all, they are human beings with human feelings and they know what it means to feel the pinch and to face the hardships and difficulties of shopping.
I now return to the point I made at the beginning, that we are not dealing with a temporary emergency. It has an important bearing on the subject of controls. As I understand it, the Government view, as very ably set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is roughly this, that the cost of living has not gone up as much as we thought, that it is going up a little more and that it is necessary to deal with the situation by strict price controls and other regulations. I read a very interesting report of a speech made by the President of the Board of Trade to the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations in London on 31st October. I think it clearly represents the point of view of hon. Members opposite. The President referred to the necessity for controls and said:
We shall in this difficult period which lies ahead of us maintain and, where necessary, extend the controls and the policies which have been successful in maintaining, in this country more than in almost any other country in the world, the purchasing power of our family incomes and the standards of living of our people.
The point I wish to make is that these price regulations and controls will not in themselves solve the problem, though they may prevent it from getting out of hand. I shall not discuss the kind of world in which I should like to live; for the purpose of this Debate, at any rate, I shall take it as I find it, a controlled economy. I recognise that in that controlled economy hon. Members opposite believe in the necessity for probably tighter controls in order to prevent the situation getting out of hand, but that in itself will not ease the lot of people who are suffering now from the high cost of living.
In considering the remedies, we must remember the great variety of causes of the present state of affairs. These include rearmament, stock-piling in America and the problem of world prices. As my hon. Friend said, there is also the effect of import duties. For example, the duty of from 10 to 33⅓ per cent. on agricultural machinery has its indirect effect on agriculture. There are also price rings which

have not yet been adequately tackled. There are also restrictive practices.
When I mentioned restrictive practices in a Debate some time ago I was challenged by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), and as a result considerable correspondence has taken place between us, in which I have quoted a number of examples. I want to quote a paragraph from that correspondence because it leads to a further point that I wish to make. I suggested that in this matter of industrial relationships it was important that we should apply:
The principle that where labour-saving machinery and increased turnover leads to increased profits, these additional profits should be shared by all engaged in the concern. According to a report in the Press on the Ogden factory dispute, Mr. Percy Belcher stated, 'We do not want to interfere with progress or with more efficient methods of production, but unless the workers in the factories get something out of the new methods—their share of any profits—we are not prepared to see these methods introduced without some kind of fight'.
The question of industrial relationships has an important bearing on the whole problem of productivity and therefore indirectly on that of the cost of living. The fear of unemployment and the belief that men should not work only to make profits for the boss are ideas which still linger on and they account for some of the restrictive customs which we wish to see brought to an end. I read in the "Observer" on Sunday a paragraph about the new committee of eight which has been set up to consult with the Chancellor and to advise the Government on production and other economic problems arising from rearmament. I read that:
It will also advise its parent body, the National Production Advisory Council on Industry, on what emergency measures or new controls are needed, and on how the idea of partnership in industry can be applied at all levels, from the bottom up.
I hope that it will not be a matter of lip service but that something really effective and radical will be done in the way of increasing and improving the degree of partnership in industry.
The view I am trying to put across is that there are a great variety of causes for the present high cost of living and that there are a great variety of remedies. I believe that economies in administration by Government Departments, the demand for which we hear so often, will have a


cumulative effect. I know it is easy to say that a particular example does not amount to much, but these add up, particularly if all the other remedies are applied.
The womenfolk of this country have had a pretty difficult time. They have borne their share of hardships during the war, they have had rather more than the average since the war, and they have been very patient. But how long will they go on putting up with it? In time of war we are all ready to work together and put up with all kinds of hardships. It is not necessary to exhort people; everybody responds as a matter of course until the victory is achieved. And in time of peace, if there is some temporary, grave emergency facing the nation, people will also respond. Here, however, we have a long-term problem which may last for years. Controls by themselves will not solve it. People will get more and more disgruntled. Hon. Members opposite ought themselves to be concerned about this because, if it is not tackled, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain the restraints which they believe necessary.
I see a long vista of disturbed international relations, with the threat of war and with preparations for war, and all the consequences these are bound to have on our economy. Unless this matter is tackled courageously, unless all possible remedies are brought to bear, I do not believe that it will be possible to increase, or even to maintain, the standard of living of our people.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald), in moving the Amendment, gave us a moderate, wide-ranging survey of our general economic problems. However, I do not think he put forward anything which will be helpful, at least from a short-term point of view, in dealing with this immediate and pressing problem of the cost of living. Indeed, I thought it was a little cruel of his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) to start by reading the Amendment which his hon. Friend had nominally moved.
Neither did the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, tell us much about how we could deal with this problem. He talked in his peroration about a wide

range of remedies, all of which would have to be applied to solve the problem, but the only one I heard him put forward clearly was the one his hon. Friend mentioned, the extension of co-partnership in industry. Whatever may be the merits of co-partnership, how much do hon. Members opposite really think it would help us in dealing with the cost of living during the next few months?
I do not think either hon. Member has cleared up what seems to me a central confusion in the heart of this Amendment. What is the nature of their primary charge against the Government? Is it that the Government are not stopping the rise in the cost of living which is taking place, or is it that the Government are not allowing an increase in the incomes of the less well-to-do to compensate for that rise? Because these two things, both of which are hinted at in all the speeches we hear from the other side of the House, from both parties opposite, are fairly near to being directly mutually contradictory.
We all know that there are a lot of external factors which are exerting inflationary pressure upon our economy. Last week the "Economist" listed three of them: the effects of devaluation, the Korean war, the boom in the United States. Those are all working outside our economy and are tending to exert an upward pressure. If the primary task of the Government, which they put before everything else, were that of keeping up the value of money, of preventing the right hon. Gentleman for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) from being able to say that the pound has gone down by such and such an amount, then Government policy is bound to be a policy of letting the outside inflationary pressure work itself out on real wages, that is, of letting real wages pay for it, of letting real wages go down.
If, however, the Government are more concerned, as I believe they should be, with the standard of living than with the cost of living—this is an important distinction which we should keep in mind in all our discussions of this problem; if the Government are more concerned with the standard of living, then it may be that certain wage increases can be allowed to take place. It may be also that certain adjustments in social security and in the National Assistance scales should take place, and that we should keep up the


standard of living by those means. Certainly, the Liberal Party cannot ask us to improve by methods which might add a little to the inflationary pressure, the position of the low paid people, who are suffering most from the rise in the cost of living, and also at the same time say to us, "But, of course, if the purchasing power of the pound goes down by a penny more, we shall denounce you."
The main Opposition suggestion on how we might deal with the cost of living is simply the old and vague cry for a smaller Budget. That was certainly the main point we had from the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) last Thursday. It was certainly the main thing on this subject which we had from the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) on the same day. We on these benches are tired of waiting to be told how such Government savings could be effected. But assuming for the moment that they could be effected, we ought at least to be told how they would affect this question of the cost of living, but we are not told that either.
I can think of two ways in which they might affect the cost of living. If it were possible to make slashing reductions in Government expenditure and to use the resultant saving to reduce the duties on tobacco and beer, there would be a fall in the cost-of-living index as a result of the fall in the cost of those two things, but there would not be a general fall in the price level outside those two commodities. And any such reduction in Government expenditure could not be made by cutting the food subsidies if it were to serve this purpose—that is very important—and after all food subsidies provide the main Opposition target for retrenchment.
But whether such a fall would have a beneficial effect on the standard of living generally, and particularly of the standard of living of the people referred to in the Liberal Amendment, would depend entirely on what the saving was made. Unless it was made on defence or on the service of the National Debt—neither of which are favourite Opposition candidates for axing—it would probably have an adverse effect on the standard of living, because the people mentioned in the Liberal Amendment would be affected

more by the loss of the real wages which would follow upon those economies than they would be by any reduction in the price of beer or tobacco.
I think that the Opposition have something a little more general in mind when they talk about a smaller Budget bringing down the cost of living. Perhaps they are thinking in terms of reducing the general pressure on resources, and by this means getting a fall in the general price level. Of course, that would only happen in so far as a smaller Budget led to a reduction of total demand. It would not happen at all merely by substituting increased private demand for reduced Government demand. Therefore, this move could only help the cost of living under two conditions.
The first of these is to reduce one side of the Budget but not the other; to reduce expenditure, if possible, but to keep up taxation. The concessions must not be distributed, but must be kept in the form of an increased surplus. The other possibility is to distribute, at any rate, some of these savings, but only to people who would themselves save a great proportion of the concession they received. That, of course, means the rich. Not all the rich would do that, but at any rate, the rich would do a good deal more saving than anybody else.
There are two things which follow from this. First, this method of tackling the cost of living by means of reducing the size of the Budget is a rather less simple thing than some hon. Members opposite seem to think. Second, any attempt to do the job by these means would have a strongly regressive effect upon the distribution of wealth. It has long been the Tory method to shelter behind the cry that the move towards big Budgets harms the poor even more than the rich. Perhaps I may remind the Liberal Party that the Tory Party said precisely that about the Budget of 1909; it is exactly what Mr. Austen Chamberlain said in those days. Of course, it was not true then, and it has never been true since. The move towards big Budgets and towards equality and a higher standard of living for most people, have been all bound up together, all part of one and the same process.
Another point which follows is that in any attempt to tackle the cost of living, to get prices stable or even to get them


down by this method, especially in present circumstances with world prices moving so sharply against us, there would be a great danger that we would have to go so far in reducing total demand that we might put ourselves in a position of endangering full employment. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), in a speech last Thursday, said that if only it were not for Government extravagance we could perfectly easily have both full employment and stable price levels. That was a very interesting proposition, and I only wish that he had produced some evidence to support it, because I cannot think of any country with a relatively free economy in recent years which has enjoyed both full employment and stable prices at the same time.

Mr. David Eccles: May I say two things? The first, of course, is that the size of the Budget affects the proportion of the people of working age who are on unproductive jobs; if we reduce the size of the Budget, we most certainly increase the number of people who are producing goods to get into the shops. That is one reason. The second thing, of which the hon. Member has spoken—and I agree with him—is the dilemma of our age: can there be stable prices and full employment? Because it has not been done, does not mean that I do not believe it can be done—I am sure that it can. One condition of having those two things is to be moderate in the proportion of the national income which is taken by the Government.

Mr. Jenkins: I am extremely glad to have the hon. Member confirming me in my view that there is no single example in a free economy of the combination of stable prices and full employment ever having occurred. He is perfectly entitled to say that as an act of faith he believes it is possible. That is all we have to go upon. Even the assurance that the hon. Member for Chippenham thinks it is possible, however, does not weigh as powerfully with me as would a few examples from countries which had achieved it.

Mr. Eccles: On his reasoning, the hon. Member says that there must always be rising prices as a concomitant to full employment.

Mr. Jenkins: Certainly, under the kind of economy with the attitude to controls which the Opposition are to advocate

later today, we are bound to have that. Certainly, full employment creats a problem so far as rising prices are concerned, but it might well be a problem which in rather easier world conditions a planned government believing in controls would overcome.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the hon. Member name an example?

Mr. Jenkins: The example of this country between the time when we had a disinflationary Budget and when the world boom started came very near to achieving that aim, and so did certain Scandinavian countries—far nearer to it than any other countries which the hon. Member for Chippenham talked about. The countries of the free world are divided sharply into two classes. There are those which have full employment and have a price problem, and those which have heavy unemployment and may have had stable or falling prices.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: And a price problem, too.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, of a different sort. There is no doubt that within the first category—countries which have had full employment—this country, except for the Scandinavian social democracies, has done far better in holding prices steady than has any other country—and, of course, we are still doing it. We may have price rises taking place, but they are very little compared with what is happening in Australia, New Zealand, or even the United States today.
It is not only what is happening around us in the world at present, but what has happened in the past in this country, which makes the attitude of the right hon. Member for Woodford—the noble Lord, Lord Woolton does it very much, too—when he implies that the simple fact that the purchasing power of the pound has fallen by a certain amount since 1945, is in itself a damning and complete indictment of the economic policy of the Government, particularly unconvincing.
That opinion must be based on a very curious view indeed of our monetary history. The fact is that there has been a secular fall in the value of money for many centuries. I do not suppose that many hon. Members opposite would suggest that we are worse off, economically at least, than we were many centuries ago.


Those on the other side must also take a curious view of our recent history in the years before the war. There were periods then—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned one of them last week—when the purchasing power of the pound increased quite sharply. The first was between 1920 and 1922, when the value of the pound on a 1914 basis went up from 8s. to 10s. 11d. The second was from 1930 to 1933, when it rose from 12s. 8d. to 14s. 3½d. But during both those periods the unemployment figures were going up much faster than was the value of the pound, and the general health and productive achievement of our economy were going down much faster.
Indeed, when we get on into the 'thirties and the period of "Tory recovery"—the period of the boom in the late 'thirties of which we are now hearing so much in connection with housing, and when things were at any rate somewhat better than at the worst of the slump—we had what the right hon. Member for Woodford now calls "the money cheat." Between January, 1933, and January, 1939, the pound fell from 14s. 3d. to 12s. 8d. [An HON. MEMBER: "It fell more in the last five years."] Yes, but we have got unemployment down to nearly 250,000, whereas then it never fell below 1¾ million. So far from the right hon. Gentleman's test being an adequate test of the general health of the economy, the fact is that the system in which he believes has been at its worst when prices were falling and at its best when prices were rising.
Therefore, I return to my original point that we must be concerned more about the 'standard of living than the cost of living. I think that an excessive preoccupation with the value of money might prevent us from allowing certain increases in wages possibly accompanied by certain adjustments in the National Assistance scales to which the nation is entitled at present. In my view, the wage stabilisation policy has served us well for a number of years, but circumstances are different now. Our danger today is not that of being priced out of world markets, but rather that of selling our exports too cheaply. The "Economist" said these things several times in last week's issue. This is a very serious matter. A year ago we devalued

the pound to two dollars 80 and, by so doing, deliberately turned the terms of trade against us to help our dollar balance.
But what has happened since then has had the effect of carrying the terms of trade still further against us, far more than is necessary to help our dollar balance, and we have been put in a position such as we might have been in a year ago if we had devalued to the needlessly low level of two dollars 50 or two dollars 40. It means that we are continually giving a free gift to those with whom we trade. With all our commitments, and particularly the new rearmament programme, this is a thing we certainly cannot afford to do.
How do we propose to prevent this? One solution would be revaluation of the pound. There are cogent arguments for that, some of which were put forward in a letter to "The Times" yesterday by Mr. Dudley Seers. But, despite those arguments, I am inclined to accept the view that for international and other reasons revaluation of the pound is not possible at present. I believe the alternative is to allow a moderate rise in wages—not something without limit, or something which gets out of control, but a moderate rise which will put our export prices up and turn the balance of trade in our favour. By these means I think we can do much to preserve the standard of living in the months ahead.
I do not think the Liberal Amendment helps at all. I do not think it puts forward an effective policy for dealing with this enormous problem, or that it pays enough attention to international influences. I think it is too much preoccupied with the value of money and not enough occupied with the standard of living. As for the Tory Party, which is presumably going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, every single aspect of their present policy suggests that, unless there were larger unemployment, there would be an increase, and not a reduction in the cost of living to a far greater extent than we have ever seen. I prefer the method of the Government which has kept the standard of living up, and will, I believe, continue to keep it up, to a higher level than we have ever previously known in this country.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I have listened with great interest, as I always do to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins), when he speaks on economic problems, and I thought he gave a very good explanation of the policy of continuous controlled inflation, although I think it would have been a little more fashionable in the spring and summer of 1947 than it is today.
As I understood the hon. Member's argument, it was that there are no examples of economies which combine stable prices with full employment and that, therefore, if we want full employment we cannot expect, at the same time, to have stable prices. I believe his outlook is that we must choose between stable prices and full employment and cannot have both; and that his party chooses full employment.

Mr. Jenkins: I thought I made my point on that clear in reply to an interjection by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I certainly do not think that in an uncontrolled economy we could have stable prices and full employment and there is no example of that to be found. As far as a controlled economy is concerned, I still think it is a difficult task, but it can be achieved, provided world conditions are not working against us as they are today.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member says that a combination of full employment and stable prices should be possible under a controlled economy. We have been living under a controlled economy for the last five years, but the possibility has yet to materialise.
I support the Amendment because it emphasises the importance of the problem of rising prices. I do not think it is easy to exaggerate the gravity of this problem, but I think it quite easy to underestimate how prices can be driven upwards in the next few months and the next year or two. In my opinion it is not a question of bringing prices down, but a question of stopping a further and more rapid rise in prices. That is the real danger of the problem. I doubt whether the expenditure at present contemplated on rearmament will prove to be enough. The cost of armaments is rising rapidly. A fighter aircraft. I am told, now costs £25,000.

Very soon it might cost £100,000. A bomber may rise from £100,000 to half a million pounds. We may well have to pay more for rearmament than we contemplate at the moment.
I suggest that there are three major influences working to increase prices. First, there are the effects of devaluation which, strangely enough, the hon. Member seemed to regard as an external factor. I should have thought it was internal. The first factor is devaluation working itself out and the second is the rearmament demand, internationally and internally. There is international competition for scarce resources, in metals, and so on, and internal demand from manufacturers stocking up for rearmament orders, which is another factor in driving up prices.
Finally, there is the pressure of wage increases and the undoubted increases in wages to be expected over the next few months which are fully justified. I am sure both sides of the House fully recognise that many wage increases must inevitably take place in the near future, although it is to be hoped that they will be restrained as they have been in the past year or two by the good sense of the trade union movement. I agree that, at the same time, there are increases in dividends which, on a small scale are having a psychological effect which may be greater than the economic effect. The economic effect has been nil in the last few months.
How are we to tackle the question of restraining the rise in prices? Surely the first thing to aim at is increased production, because the object of reducing the cost of living is to increase the consumption of the ordinary people. When people say that they want the cost of living to come down, they mean they want more to consume, more to eat, more to wear and more to put in their houses. As the "Economist" pointed out the other day, if we increase wages while maintaining prices stable and do not increase production the effect will be merely further inflation. We must have more production.
I echo what was said by the mover of the Amendment, that there may be a need for increasing working hours in the next few months, but I do not think it is a practical proposition without increased


pay. It does not seem to me to make sense. When there is spare capacity in the aircraft industry on a large scale and big rearmament orders to be met in the near future, surely there is a case for increased hours of work.
The next point I should like to make is in regard to reducing restrictive practices both of capital and labour. I know that a great deal about restrictive practices is said on both sides of the House that is perhaps inaccurate, but I should like to know what is happening about an inquiry into restrictive practices of labour which was mentioned by the Lord President of the Council in April, 1949. A sub-committee of the National Joint Advisory Committee was to produce a report on restrictive practices so that the House and the country could judge the position and try to suggest what could be done. Nothing more, to my knowledge, has been heard of the work of that Committee since April, 1949.
Then, on the other side, there is the Monopolies Commission, to which reference has been made. I agree that it is desirable that the first report of that Commission should be issued as soon as possible. Both sides of the House will be interested for varying reasons in the reports which are to be made, and the sooner they are available the better, because surely if we are to reduce prices one of the most effective methods is to stimulate competition.
Much is said about the level of profits. and it is an easy argument for hon. Members on the other side of the House to say, "Look at the level of profits. There is great scope for bringing down prices without affecting anyone's standard of living." Hon. Members forget that at least 60 per cent.—and in the long run more than 60 per cent.—of profits go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The second point to remember is that it is misleading to refer to the global level of profits, because in this global figure of profits many companies are having difficulty in maintaining their capital intact, while other companies are certainly earning or have been earning inflationary profits. Despite the high level of gross profits, according to the White Paper, many companies of substantial stature in industry have been unable to maintain their working capital, and are having to

go to the market for further capital, such as The Imperial Tobacco Company. There has been a move recently out of Daltons into Dulvertons. So if any attempt to reduce profits is not selective, it will do a great deal of harm. Surely the only way to eliminate any excessive profits is by more competition. I hope we shall have some action in the aspect of encouraging competition and reducing restrictive practices.
My next point is the question of credit control. I believe that the Government have not exhausted the possibilities of selective credit control.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member suggests that increased competition would tend to restrict excessive profits, and the one instance he gives of that is in connection with the capital of the Imperial Tobacco Company. Is he suggesting that there is any possibility of introducing competition into that field?

Mr. Maudling: If the right hon. Gentleman will look into the industry mentioned he will see that it is by no means a monopoly industry. He should remember that the existence of an industrial giant is not quite the same thing as the existence of a monopoly.
I believe it is true that instructions have been issued recently from the Treasury to our banking system to tighten up control of credit on a selective basis. That is a wise move, but surely the Government should make quite certain that in their own credit policy they support this movement which they are imposing on the banking system. The movements recently in the volume of bank deposits suggests that we have seen a certain return to what I might call the 1947 system of Government monetary policy. I hope the authorities will resist the temptation to dress up the gilt-edged markets in advance of a new issue of nationalised stock if this involves more credit creation. That would not be in the interests of reducing or holding the cost of living.
My next point refers to the value of the pound to which reference has already been made. I agree that there is much evidence at the moment that sterling is undervalued, particularly in relation to the dollar, and any under-valuation may increase, because the American inflation


may be faster than ours. Their rearmament effort and the extent of the assistance they are offering to other countries overseas will tend to put a much greater pressure on their economy than the pressure exerted on our economy. If the pound is undervalued, we are selling our exports much cheaper than we ought to do; for example, it is the experience of many business men that it is not price competition so much as tariff regulations which impede us in the American market.
What is the solution? I agree that revaluation to a new fixed parity would not be satisfactory. For one thing the present closing of the dollar gap may be only temporary. It depends a good deal on the level of commodity prices, and that depends on the extent of the stockpiling demands of the American authorities, which is unknown to the general public and may well be unknown in detail to His Majesty's Government. Secondly, I doubt if other members of the International Monetary Fund would agree to a revaluation of sterling to a higher fixed value unless it were accompanied by measures for increasing the convertibility of sterling. I would ask His Majesty's Government if they should not look again at their whole attitude to the question of fixed parities in foreign exchange, and the doctrines that have been adopted in these recent years, because we have been getting some very peculiar circumstances as the result of fixed parities.
We have had an economic crisis in this country because we have had an adverse balance of foreign trade. Australia has had a favourable balance of trade, but also it has had a crisis. This suggests that the position is a little difficult, and certainly the present system of fixed values is an encouragement to speculative movements of hot money which Members opposite so much oppose. There is a greater movement of that kind of money under this system than there would be in a free exchange market. I would ask the Government to consider following the example of the Canadian Government, who have freed their dollar. It would be possible, while maintaining present controls over capital, and, if necessary, current payments, to allow the pound to find its own level in a free exchange market. That would be a higher level and the movement in the valuation of the

pound would have an immediate effect, though a small one at first, on the cost of living through its effect on import prices.
My next point is the question of the purchase of commodities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day referred to measures the Government were introducing to co-ordinate the purchase of strategic commodities by the Western Powers. I hope that will be pressed ahead, but I cannot but look with concern at the new trade agreement with Russia, whereby sterling will be made available to the Russians for the purchase of wool, rubber and other commodities which are in such demand in international markets. I hope that measures were taken before we entered into this agreement, and made this sterling available to co-ordinate policy with our Western allies.
I come, finally, to the question of the budgetary position in this country. I have left it till last, because I do not want to deal at any length with the budgetary position. Quite clearly, if we are to be faced with this heavy rearmament programme on top of rising prices we shall have to have another Budget surplus, and that Budget surplus must be met somehow. I hope that, so far as possible, it will be met by reducing Government expenditure. One thing I hope the Chancellor will not do is to introduce another capital levy, for this reason: it is economic nonsense, and hon. Members opposite who study these matters know that it is economic nonsense. The idea of a Budget surplus is to take money out of current expenditure. By reducing a man's income one stops that man spending money; but by reducing his capital one does not stop him spending money. As a distinguished lawyer said to me the day after the last investment income levy, "I am going to spend my capital before the rats get at it." He was not referring to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but merely expressing a general point of view.
We cannot stop the expenditure of capital by curtailing capital: we merely stop savings. A capital levy is economic nonsense. I know that we shall be told that it is psychological sense, but all hon. Members opposite mean by this is that they will try to console the ordinary voter by saying, "We cannot reduce your burden, but we shall put an extra burden


on another chap for good measure so that you can enjoy seeing him having a bad time." I also ask the House to remember that there is already a substantial capital gains tax inherent in the heavy rate of Stamp Duty which falls at this moment on both capital profits and capital losses.
I have been trying to outline a number of ways in which the problem of rising costs can be tackled and I want to end as I started. The problem is not one of reducing the cost of living so much as of holding it steady, as far as we possibly can, and every possible weapon should be brought into play in solving this vital problem.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Williams: I hope that the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will forgive me if I do not follow him over the very wide area he has travelled, partly because I have promised to be brief. I may, however, in what I have to say speak incidentally on some of the points he has raised.
I have listened with great interest to this Debate. It has seemed to me that, in general, the Opposition understand as the only means, or at least the most effective means, of holding or reducing the cost of living some method of limiting and controlling Government expenditure. If I may say so, that seems to me to be in one respect irrelevant and in another dishonest at this juncture. Irrelevant, because anything that the Government do in the limitation of expenditure must be a long-term matter. Clearly the speeches from these benches have shown that the urgency of the problem is one that demands immediate and immediately successful action. Dishonest, because it is admitted generally, I believe—certainly by those who have studied the subject—that any reduction in Government expenditure immediately could only result immediately not in a reduction of prices but in an increase.
We have heard considerable criticism of the Government bulk buying programme, and an attack has been made again in this Debate, as in previous Debates, on the Government policy subsidies. Well, it is clear that if bulk buying were abandoned the consequences would be an immediate increase in prices. Secondly, whatever the long-term effects

of changes in any policy subsidies, it is perfectly clear that the only effect on the mass of the working people in any way would be an immediate increase in their cost of living.
Perhaps, it would be as well if we were to ask ourselves what immediate action should be taken to discuss ways and means of reducing the cost of living on the actual cost of articles sold. There are five things which I suggest might be regarded as the essentials which go into the price of any article on sale: raw materials; wages, distributive costs; profits, and general overheads.

Brigadier Thorp (Berwick-upon-Tweed): What about Purchase Tax?

Mr. Williams: And Purchase Tax, yes. It is true to say that, generally speaking, the Government policy on raw materials has succeeded at least in holding prices level, and in making it possible, by means of subsidies, to reduce the cost of the article beyond even the cost to the Government for the purchaser at the retail level. My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Jenkins), spoke at considerable length on the way in which Government expenditure in these matters has succeeded in maintaining a stable level of prices in this country.
On the other hand, too few speakers in this Debate so far have concerned themselves with the contribution of wages to costs. I suggest that, so far from the position being as suggested by the hon. Member for Barnet—that, unless there were increased productivity, increased wages without increased prices would result in a further inflationary pressure—the reality is rather that our economy can now, and indeed will have to, bear an increase of wages of about 5 per cent. I think the Government recognise that. Undoubtedly the negotiations that are going on for wage increases at the moment will result, and must result, in some increases, and I believe our economy can bear it.
The important thing is to emphasise a point on which I believe the Government are on strong ground; what has happened in this country is that increasing costs have been related closely to the increase in real wages, so that the standard of living has not suffered. In this difficult situation the Government ought more pointedly to make real to the people the


fact that the standard of their living has been maintained by Government policy.
I should like to say a few words on distributive costs. This is something about which the Government really could do a great deal more than they are doing. Distributive costs in this country are far too high. Already there are far too many people who make little or no contribution, but who in distributive costs take profits out of industry. It was some months ago that I had the honour of leading a debate in this House on the scandal of re-sale price maintenance. At that time the President of the Board of Trade was good enough to say that the matter was being looked into, and was engaging his close attention. From that time to this we have heard nothing. Re-sale price maintenance continues, and protects the inefficient to the sacrifice of the consumer.
I am proud to be a member of the Co-operative movement, and I think the Government might make far greater use of the Co-operative movement than they are doing in this respect, because, as I think the President of the Board of Trade would be the first to admit, the movement has been successful in helping to keep down our cost of living—and I do not refer to dividends. Recently an approach was made to the President of the Board of Trade from a large distributive agency asking that the margins of profits on distribution should be increased, and I have no doubt that the hands of the President were greatly strengthened by the fact that the Co-operative movement dissociated itself from that demand, so that my right hon. Friend was able to say that the movement found its distributive margin sufficient, and so protected the consumer.
However, the particular point about which I want to speak, and which I should be glad if you would permit me to elaborate a little more fully, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is the relationship of profits to the cost of living. Here I think I shall find myself at loggerheads with hon. Gentlemen opposite. From researches which I have made, I believe that it cannot be contradicted that it is still true to say that profits, in the words of our last Chancellor of the Exchequer, are still frightfully high in this country. The rise in profits of private enterprise

from 1938 to 1948, according to Cmd. 7649, was from £1,173 million to £2,857 million, or to 274 per cent. of 1938.
In the same period, wages and salaries rose by 205 per cent., but the increase in employment was 4 to 5 per cent., so that the wages per unit employed rose to 196 per cent. over 1938. This figure falls further, to 175 per cent., if coal miners are omitted from the table.

Mr. Maudling: Could the hon. Gentleman quote the index figure for the rises in the cost of capital equipment and stocks which have to be met out of gross profits?

Mr. Williams: I expected that question, because it has become fashionable for the Opposition to say that depreciation allowances are inadequate and that the cost of replacements, and so on, is high. In 1948 provision for depreciation for business, private and public, was 2.3 times the 1938 figure, compared with a rise in wholesale prices of 2.0 times the 1938 figure. I quote from the "Economic Journal" for 1949. In money terms, out of a total of £7,100 million earned by private enterprise in 1948, 47 per cent. went in wages, 13 per cent. in salaries and 40 per cent. in profits.
Profits, therefore, are a substantial factor in prices. According to H. Champion's "Public and Private Property" the pre-war value of private industry was roughly £7,000 million. I suggest that, excluding the nationalised industries, at 1948 prices this may be put at £15,000 million or £16,000 million. The gross profits of private enterprise represent 19 per cent. of this figure and net profits represent 14 per cent., so that, since this is the average, I suggest that the returns on capital at the highest levels must be considered handsome.
In the light of this data, I suggest to the Government that there is a real possibility of deliberate price reduction at the expense of profits. I know that the answer will depend on whether one believes that 14 per cent. is right, or that profits should be allowed to rise wherever they will, or that they should rise by 2½ per cent. or 5 per cent.; but at least I believe that nobody could think it unreasonable if profits were regarded as fair which gave a rise equal to the average rise in wages. It should be remembered that in 1938 profits were the highest for 15 years.
If this were done, £700 million would be available for price reduction. That would be equal to a magnitude of price reductions over the whole field, spread over consumption, Government purchases, capital formations and exports, of up to 7 per cent.

Mr. Maudling: If £700 million is knocked off profits, would not £420 million be knocked off taxation?

Mr. Williams: That I admit. But it must also be borne in mind that if we are to have this change, it would be a change in the distribution of income among the whole of the people. If it is true that the Exchequer would lose, in some respects, it would gain in others by the gain in taxation at lower levels. Surely it is admitted that the heaviest burdens fall upon the poorest. The Government should seek to obtain the greatest relief for the poorest among the nation even though it might cause headaches for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Though I could not work out the whole policy in the time at my disposal. I suggest that these are the lines upon which the Treasury should be working.
In view of the frightfully high profits which, as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said, are being earned by private enterprise, and the fact that replacements are allowed at a very Generous level, and that it is not true to insist—as has been constantly insisted—that depreciation allowances and so on are too low to permit a lower level of profits, it is of the highest importance that the Government should seek to explore the levels of profits to discover if there is no way by which direct relief may be given to the people, specifically at the expense of profits.
I have tried to keep within the 10 minutes allowed me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I conclude with one final argument. This, too, is controversial. It is possible that hon. Gentlemen opposite will again ask such questions as, "If this happens what follows from the point of view of the Exchequer?" I have not the time—and I could not do it at this point even if I wanted to—to explain or follow out all the implications of my suggestion. Nevertheless, I suggest that it is a substantial level at which the cost of living should be attacked by the Government

with direct benefit to the people, to industry and the nation generally.
I suggest that, among other overheads which are greatly increasing the cost of living, possibly coal stands as one of the supreme charges on industry. One of the questions which the Government might easily explore—and I should be glad to know if it was being done—would be whether a direct subsidy should be given to coal. If the cost of coal could be reduced, then the effect upon all our industry would be progressive

5.18 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I did my best to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams), but I think, as he rather indicated towards the close of his speech, the point would have come out more clearly if he had devoted more attention to the contribution which the profits which he was discussing are making to the Revenue at present. Certainly, without a full allowance for the fact that over 60 per cent. goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the relevance and weight of his point are much more difficult to perceive.
I welcome this Amendment from the Liberal benches, largely because I believe that the two statements which will go out to ordinary people in the country from these days of debate will be, first, that the Government believe that they have succeeded in holding prices; and, secondly, that the Government believe, as was shown yesterday, that the rate of house building cannot be increased. These are the points affecting the ordinary life of the ordinary person after all economic difficulties have been considered. We have had two additions today. The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) has put forward a plea for greatly inflationary increases in wages and prices of exports, and, again let us face what that means. It is a planned attack on savings. I do not believe that saving is the prerogative of a class. I know, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know, that saving is a quality which goes through every income range among our people and must be recognised and respected wherever it exists.
In the very short time which I promise to detain the House. I want to devote my remarks to factors which I believe are


within the control of the Government in dealing with the problem of the cost of living. The first is that of Government expenditure, and the second is the price of the products and services of the nationalised industries in this country. In my view, and nothing that I have heard has shaken it, there are three aspects in which the Government expenditure affects the cost of living. There is, first of all, the incidence of taxation; and I calculate that direct and indirect taxation means a total payment to the State on the average of £2 10s. out of the average worker's income of £6 10s. per week, and, in the case of a married man, where the P.A.Y.E. goes down, there are corresponding increases in articles subject to indirect taxation.
The second point is a perfectly simple one. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour not to interrupt. I have promised to take only 10 minutes, and, though I generally give way, I am afraid that I cannot do so tonight. The second point, and this again is an incontrovertible one, is that, if we have a Government expenditure in the region of £4,000 million, we must increase the competition for the goods that are left in the country, putting up the prices of those goods. The third point, which is also indisputable, is that, if we believe in a highly centralised and top-heavy system of administration, ipso facto we take people from productive industry into that work and occupy people normally engaged in productive industry in form-filling and the various requirements of centralised Government.
That is the position, and therefore I believe that if we are serious about this —and, believe me, if anyone goes round any shopping centre in his division, he will find out how serious it is for the ordinary person at the present time; we all know it and cannot get away from it— we have to do at least four things immediately. I believe that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said, we must attack the expenditure at the centre. Secondly, I believe that we must have some form of check, which does not exist at the moment, on local extravagance. I find wherever I go that somebody knows a number of cases of local extravagance. There is no method by which they are being checked at the moment, and unless

a check is instituted that extravagance will go on.
The third point is that I believe that we have to eliminate bulk buying in the case of non-strategical goods, and, once again, I come to the frills. I say that, in a situation like this, when Government expenditure is one of the factors, to have these frills of expenditure that we have seen on groundnuts, on Government publicity, on Civil Service travelling, on Government building, is something we cannot afford at the present time. I believe that, if we were to take it irrespective of party and ask our own people in our own constituencies, "What is your priority?" they would say, "Cut these frills now and reduce Government expenditure," with the results which I have indicated.
The other point which I believe must be dealt with is that of the cost of the products of nationalised industries. It simply is not good enough to turn losses into an even keel or profits by putting up the prices of the products to people who have no alternative place to which to go or no alternative product to buy. These are really the economics of Bedlam. If we take coal, electricity or transport, we all know that they are hitting our people because the Government has not made any efforts or adopted any suggestions towards improvement and increased efficiency in our nationalised industries which would reduce the prices.
I can only put it in outline, but we believe in decentralisation for this very good reason—that it is in accordance with the traditions and genius of the British people that local problems can be dealt with best by local people who understand them and local conditions, and that is the basis of our decentralisation proposal for coal, electricity, and transport. We believe that, if it was only given a real trial—not a pretence, but a real trial—it would bring not only greater efficiency but the lower prices which are so essential at the present time. We have had seven years' investigation miles removed from the problem. We have created monopolies; we have created a Monopoly Commission. Let us have the State monopolies examined by the Commission to clear out the classic faults of monopoly, which are resting on your laurels and lack of efficiency, and—let us face it—laziness when we have a complete market.
I have tried to indicate shortly and in outline the lines on which we think this problem can be attacked, and these are under the control of the Government. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I will vote for this Amendment to show our desire that these things shall be done and our realisation that this is a problem not for talk in economists' classrooms, but for immediate action for the benefit of the people of our country on whom the burden falls.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions? Would he make clear whether he regards profits and losses as the index of efficiency? For instance, I understand that the nationalised industries are condemned for making losses, because that is inefficient, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to attack them for making profits, because that is overcharging. The second question is: Is it his policy to pay any regard to the index figures of the economists?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am always glad to answer questions from the right hon. Gentleman. On the first question, the point I made is this. When nationalised industries have made enormous losses—as coal did in the first year, and as transport did in the first year, the second year and again in the third year—the one way in which we must not allow the industry to slide into destroying that loss is by passing it straight on to the consumer. That is not fair to the consumer. The way to get rid of that loss is by the increased efficiency of the undertaking and I have suggested that in a broad way. In regard to the index figure, I do not think the index figure can be anything like right. In September, it showed a drop from 114 to 113. But there are 32 articles in general use by the ordinary housewife which have gone up since March this year. I do not think that the basis of the index figure can be right when it produces that result.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) accused us of being too preoccupied with the value of the pound. I dare say that, in certain circumstances, that would be a fair criticism, but it is with the value of their money, with what

it will buy, that the people of this country are deeply concerned today. Further, he asked us to draw a distinction between the standard of living and the cost of living. Our Amendment is intended to draw attention to the fact that unless the cost of living is reduced, the standard will inevitably fall, and many of the benefits which have been won during the last 20 or 25 years will be lost. I think it will be generally agreed, at any rate in private, that this question of the cost of living is something which is of the very deepest concern to ordinary people. It is something which for many people even overshadows housing and the threat of war.
One would have thought that a Government who believe in planning—and I believe in planning if by planning we mean the direction of the resources of the country on broad lines for the benefit of the people—would have put this problem in the forefront of their thinking. Although I believe it is mentioned in the King's speech there does not appear to have been any new thought on it since the last Budget. I do not suppose that anyone believes that either the buying of the shares of the Beet Sugar Corporation which are held in private hands, or the Bill for the restriction of salmon poaching in Scotland are going to do much towards lowering the cost of living.
The Government remain tied to their two practices which they announced in the spring—subsidies and controls. At that time we had a small incentive by way of a slight reduction in Income Tax which was, in effect, taken away again by a swingeing increase in the Petrol Duty. The position with regard to subsidies today is curious. I have nothing against subsidies; on the contrary, I accept that we must have subsidies as part of our general plan when they are likely to achieve their objective. But what I do not believe is that subsidies are fixed at their present level as part of any plan at all. I think they were caught at that level when the taxable resources of the country ran out and all our ceilings became floors.
We are told that there is no possibility of a reduction in the size of our annual Budget. I quite agree that no Government of whatever party could make a slashing reduction in the Budget at this moment. It is obvious that rearmament will cost a great deal, that pensions will


have to be increased, and that the cost of our social services will tend to mount over the years ahead. But, nevertheless, certain practical proposals have been put forward. For instance, we proposed that the Ministry of Civil Aviation might be abolished. Furthermore, while I believe that on administration it may be very difficult for anyone not inside the Government machine to point out exactly where the wheels are sticking, no one can get away from the fact that countless people in the country today have to deal with Government Departments, and, again and again, we meet men who point out where two officials are doing a job which could be done by one, or where two journeys are made where one would suffice.
It is very difficult to believe that that can all be explained away. Therefore, we say that some reduction in the administration of Government offices is possible. Even if it is only a small reduction, it would have a great psychological effect. Everyone knows that an inflationary situation is increased so long as people believe that it must continue. Even if the reduction were small, it would give some promise to the people that increased taxation was ending, and that the Government were going to set an example in the economy which they so often call on others to practice. On the one hand, therefore, we hope for some indication of Government economy, and, on the other, we suggest that the only way eventually to bring down prices, to fill our shops and to stabilise the cost of living is by greater productivity—greater than 5 per cent. or even 15 per cent.
On wages, up to now the Government's policy has been to hold what we may call the "Cripps' Line," and we must be exceeding grateful to the trade unions for the battle they have waged to hold that line whatever we may think of the strategy which made that battle necessary. But it is obvious that before rearmament came on the scene the line was already crumbling, and rearmament will make it almost certain that the line will be smashed. It can only be reformed elsewhere by a wages policy and higher productivity.
The reports of nearly all the committees that went to America to investigate production there go to show that one of the great differences between that country and this is that in America there is an expansionist outlook in their industries.

They believe that by selling more goods at a cheaper price they will meet the needs of the ordinary people. They also believe in the right to promotion of the ordinary worker, and we on these benches think, at any rate, that some of those ideas should be put into practice over here. We want to see workers climbing up in their industries. We must face this fact that wages in most industries should be a reward for effort and are not yet a social security payment. By all means let us have a basic wages policy with a minimum wage, but after that it is necessary that the man who is prepared to work harder or better, thus adding to our production, should be given some reward for that extra production.
Earlier in the Debate we had suggestions regarding profit-sharing as it would affect wage earners. I wish to draw attention to the fact that this question of productivity is, in the first instance, primarily one of management. The Government may do a great deal to hamper or to help managements. One of the things they can do to help managements is to make their plans known, to stick to them, and to give as much information as possible. I believe that once again we cannot get a fixed price for ships because the shipbuilding industry will not quote a price owing to their apprehension concerning the cost of steel after nationalisation. Again, I think we may well have to have an even greater differential between the tax levied on unearned income and that levied on earned income so that the man who is earning by his efforts and who is showing initiative receives some reward for doing so.
If the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams), when he talks of high profits, is condemning the system by which a guaranteed profit margin is given to many monopolistic firms, efficient or inefficient, then I think there is a great deal in his criticism which is valid, though I think he should quote net and not gross profits. I have no doubt that the correct way to deal with the matter is to encourage competition in those industries, and to break up monopolies. But, at the same time, he must bear in mind that it is with these profits that our capital is built up; and it is very doubtful whether we are able to build up quickly enough today even with the profits that are being


earned. There is a case for distinguishing between Death Duties on what one might call inactive capital and Death Duties imposed on what one might call active capital in, for instance family businesses.
We do not believe, today, that the main problem facing this country is any longer, in the first instance, the redistribution of wealth. We believe the party opposite have been too much obsessed by the mentality of the 1920's—the need to "whang" the rich. They have been effectively "whanged," and, if there is to be any more "whanging" to be done, the margin is small. The need today is to create more real wealth for all the people of the country—to increase production. We need for that an entirely new outlook. I do not believe nationalisation is going to do it. I do not believe that the people of this country believe that nationalisation is going to do it, and I do not believe that workers in the industries that have been nationalised would say, privately, that it was going to do it.
I do not believe a restrictive outlook will do it. Let us break down this restrictive practice on both sides of industry. We must have an expansionist outlook and believe in making and selling a lot of goods and bringing down prices. I do not believe that centralised bureaucratic control will do it. Controls we must have, but controls themselves will be smashed inevitably by rising prices. We on this side want to see some indication on the part of the Government that they appreciate the problem not as one of statistics but in terms of human values and that they have some new thought to offer upon it.

5.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We have had a very interesting and I think, compared with yesterday, a very placid debate on this subject; and I hope that nothing I shall say will disturb these smooth waters over which most of us have sailed during the course of this afternoon. Of course we were greatly helped by the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald), who moved the Amendment, was really one that ought to have been delivered last week in the general debate on the Address because, as Mr. Speaker said, he

did not find very much about the Amendment in it.
After all, in the opening phases of his speech, he supported the policy that His Majesty's Government have been pursuing and are, at the moment, pursuing, with increased activity in extending bulk buying to international bulk buying as the only way in which to prevent an inordinate increase in the cost of those materials that will be required by all the Western nations in their rearmament programme. But the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), who seconded the Amendment, said one thing which I think has been largely absent from the rest of the speeches on the other side. He said he wanted to deal with the world in which we are living. After all, that is the problem that confronts the Government, We have to deal with the world, not as we would like to have it, but as it is, and to face this topic in its real relationships not merely with this country but with the rest of the world.
Judged by that standard, this country has been more successful than any other country in dealing with the post-war problems that confront us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) from time to time quotes the extent to which the pound has fallen since the end of the war. What other currency is there in Western Europe or America that has fallen less than ours? At the present moment, and I suppose it is winding up today, there is a great deal of attention being given to this problem in the United States of America. Some kind gentleman sends me every week a copy of the American journal "Newsweek," and I see in the last issue that reached me a cartoon out of the "Sioux City Journal-Tribune" about the shrinking dollar. To quote that cartoon, the dollar has shrunk to 57 cents over a period of which I am not quite aware. I think it goes back to something earlier than 1945, let me be quite frank on that. Of course this has been used in the United States as one of the propaganda weapons of the Republican Party to discredit the Government there.
But with all their resources, the fall in United States currency has been approximately the same—I think slightly more. I do not want to press it too hard—as the fall in the value of the currency in this country over the period since the war.


That is an indication that the policies pursued by this Government have, at least, been as successful in dealing with our situation as the policy of what is now the richest nation in the world and one with the greatest economic opportunities. After all, we have had to face the loss of all our overseas investments. We now have to pay by the current products of this country for all the goods we require, whether for feeding our people or for providing them with raw materials——

Mr. Pickthorn: In making these comparisons of devaluation of the pound and the dollar, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which is the giving end and which is the receiving end of the Marshall Aid scheme?

Mr. Ede: Really, after all, we have now reached a stage, owing to the policy of this Government and, I admit, with a bit of luck, where we find ourselves in a position where Marshall Aid is no longer a requisite of our economy. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood-ford at the Conservative Party Conference in 1945——

Mr. Churchill: Is this to be taken as a declaration that the Government do not expect any continuance of Marshall Aid?

Mr. Ede: Certainly not. I was dealing with the economy before the rearmament programme. Undoubtedly the rearmament programme has——

Mr. Churchill: I really think this ought to be put quite plainly, because we see in the papers that questions have been raised as to whether Marshall Aid should be continued now, and a statement like that coming from the Home Secretary at this moment may conceivably lead to decisions which I was not aware, from anything we have been told, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is either expecting or welcoming.

Mr. Ede: The discussions are proceeding, but it does not alter the fact that we are now in a position where, over the last few months at least, we have been able to balance our payments.

Mr. Pickthorn: What about my question?

Mr. Ede: I was trying to get to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I was interrupted by his right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford. The right hon.

Gentleman himself said at the Conservative Party Conference in March, 1945, when he thought he would have the task of dealing with our post-war economy:
We have given our all in the common cause and may claim assistance to recover our normal economy from those we have helped to victory.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman might also bear witness to the efforts which I made to commend to the people of the United States the Government's request for the thousand million loan, and we did not call them "shabby moneylenders."

Mr. Ede: My memory of the Loan is quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman himself abstained and advised his hon. Friends to abstain in the division that was taken in the House on that question. [Interruption.] A further effort is being made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) to divert me from what I am trying to say.
We have been urged by many hon. Members opposite to do something to increase productivity. This Government have a better record with regard to the productivity that has occurred during their term of office than any other Government who have held office in this country. From January, 1949, till September of this year, taking the 1946 production index as 100, the figure of production has risen from 124 to 142 or 143. We shall continue to do all that we can to encourage productivity, and we want to bear our testimony to the willing way in which both management and workpeople have co-operated to ensure that magnificent result.
We recognise also the splendid self-discipline that has been displayed by the workers of this country in the demands that they have put forward during the past few years. They have been in a position of tremendous economic power where, had they decided to exert their economic power to the full extent of its capacity, they could have completely brought to a standstill any hope of our economic recovery. Their attitude has been in strikine contrast to that of the employing section of the community in the period between the two wars when economic power rested with them. We recognise that there may have to be in the near future some reconsideration of some


of these levels, but we believe that the same patriotic self-discipline will be exercised by these people, for they at least know that the future of their prosperity depends upon this country being able to maintain the high position that it has managed to achieve through their efforts during the last few years.
I accept the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Jenkins), in his very able speech, that we must have regard not merely to the cost of living but to the standard of living. By securing full employment, we have given to the people of this country the opportunity, among the lowest paid workers, of enjoying a higher standard of living continuously than has ever been the case in the past. I recollect the days when I was a schoolmaster and had to deal with working class children in schools before there was any unemployment insurance or anything else like that —just the poor law. Unemployment was rampant, and the miseries and hardships that were then suffered presented a picture in this country very different from that which confronts us today. We shall continue with our policy of full employment, and we shall take every step that we possibly can to safeguard and perfect it.
I have been asked by one or two hon. Members about the continuance of bulk buying. For most of the commodities bulk buying has now ceased, except in the food markets. The commodity in which the price hay risen most, wool, is one that is now entirely controlled by private buying. With regard to food, however, and some other materials that are essential for the maintenance of our economy, we shall continue to use bulk purchase. We are fortified in the belief that that is the right policy by the Report of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which was quoted once or twice last week, and which I think I ought to

quote again so that there shall be no doubt about it. In their Report for 1949 they say:
European countries were able to protect their economies from the unfavourable effects of the changed price structure in the world at large, partly through the methods of bulk buying which enabled the United Kingdom in particular to obtain basic foodstuffs at relatively low prices.
That policy we still believe to be right.
We cannot in this country—and I should have thought this would have been widely recognised on the Liberal benches —isolate ourselves from world conditions. We are living in a world in which prices are bound to rise, and to talk of reducing prices is in fact to declare oneself completely out of touch with what is taking place throughout the world. Our policy has secured during the past five years that the cost of living has risen less in this country than in those countries which have abandoned the policies of control that we have used, and has enabled our people to get both food and raw materials in conditions that cannot be equalled by any other country in the world.
We recognise that it is impossible in this world, divided as it is at present, to anticipate that there will be any reduction in the cost of living, but what we are determined to do is to ensure that in that world there shall be the exercise of such powers by the Government, assisted by all connected with industry, as to ensure that we are able to maintain full employment for our people and that the standard of living shall remain as high as possible. With the continued rise in productivity we believe that we shall manage to get through the difficult period of the next two or three years without inflicting hardship on any members of our community.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 299.

Division No. 2.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m


Aitken, W. T.
Beamish, Maj. T V H
Bowen, R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, R. M.
Bower, N.


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, R F B (Gosport)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Braine, B.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Tox[...]eth)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G


Assheton, Rt. Hon R (Blackburn, W
Birch, Nigel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W


Astor. Hon. M
Bishop, F. P
Brooke, H. (Hampstead)


Baldock, J. M
Black, C. W.
Browne, J. N. (Govan)


Baldwin, A. E
Boles, Lt.-Col D C (Well[...]
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T


Banks, Col C.
Boothby, R.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Bossom, A. C
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E




Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Powell, J. Enoch


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hudson, W R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prescott, Stanley


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr N. J.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ifford, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. H. (Scotstoun)
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Hyde, H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Redmayne, M.


Clyde, J. L.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Remnant, Hon. P


Colegate, A.
Jennings, R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Roberts, P. G. (Healey)


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kaberry, D.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Ccrbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Keeling, E. H.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Roper, Sir H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Laneaster, Col. C. G
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Russell, R. S.


Crouch, R. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)
Leather, E. H. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


C[...]thbert, W. N.
Leggs-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Savory, Prof. D. L


Darling, Sir W Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Scott, Donald


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, Martin
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Llewellyn, D.
Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)


de Chair, S.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)


De la Bére, R
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. McN.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Soames, Capt. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts[...] S.W)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Donner, P. W.
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord [...]
Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)


Drewe, C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stevens, G. P


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
McAdden, S. J.
Steward, W A. (Woolwich, W.)


Duncan, Capt. J A L
McCallum, Maj. D
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Duthie W. S
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Eccles, D M.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
McKibbin, A.
Studholme, H. G.


Erroll, F. J.
McKie, J H. (Galloway)
Summers, G. S.


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maclean, F. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


fort, R.
MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Foster, J. G.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Teeling, William


Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thompson, R. H. M (Croy[...], W.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Gammans, L. D.
Marples, A. E.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Gamer-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Tilney, John


Gates, Maj. E E.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Touche, G. C.


Glyn, Sir R.
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Grimston, Hon. J (St. Albans)
Maude, J. C. (Exeter)
Turton, R. H.


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Maudling, R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harden, J. R. E.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mellor, Sir J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Molson, A H. E.
Vosper, D. F


Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wade, D. W.


Harvey, Air Codre A. V. (Ma[...]lesfield)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wakefield, Sir W. W (St. Marylebond)


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Head, Brig. A H
Nabarro, G.
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Wo[...])


Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon Sir C
Nicholls, H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Heald, L. F.
Nicholson, G.
Waterhouse, Capt. C


Heath, Edward
Nield, B. (Chester)
Watkinson, H.


Henderson, John (Catheart)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nugent, G R. H.
Wheatley, Major M. J (Poole)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nutting, Anthony
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Odey, G. W
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hittchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Williams, Sir H G (Croydon, E.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wills, G


Hollis, M. C.
Ore, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Hope, Lord J.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wood, Hon R


Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Osborne, C
York. C


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.



Horsbrugh, Miss F.
Perkins, W R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig, C. H. M
Mr. Grimond and Mr. Macdonald.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Piekthorn, K.








NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Field, Capt. W J
MacColl, J E


Adams, Richard
Finch, H. J.
McGhee, H G


Albu, A. H.
Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E)
McGovern, J


Alien, A. C (Bosworth)
Follick, M.
McInnes, J


Allen, Scholefield (Crawe)
Foot, M. M.
Mack, J. D


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Forman, J. C.
McKay, J (Wallsend)


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Mackay, R. W G (Reading, N)


Attlee, Rt. Hon C. R
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McLeavy, F


Awbery, S S
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, M K. (Western Is[...]


Ayles, W. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H T [...]
McNeil, Rt. Hon H


Bacon, Miss A
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Baird, J
Gibson, C. W
Mallalieu, E L (Brigg)


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J P W (Huddersfield, E.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. [...]
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs J


Bartley, P.
Gooch, E G
Manuel, A. C


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F [...]
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Anthony W J (Rossendale)
Mathers, Rt. Hon George


Beswick, F
Greenwood, Rt. Hon Arthur (Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw [...])
Grenfell, D. R
Messer, F


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Woolwich, E.)
Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs L


Bing, G. H C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Blackburn, A R
Griffiths, Rt. Hon J (Llanally)
Mitchison, G. R


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, W D (Exchange)
Moeran, E W


Blyton, W. R.
Gunter, R. J
Monslow, W


Boardman, H
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Moody, A S


Booth, A
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Morgan, Dr H B


Bottomley, A. G
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.


Bowden, H W
Hale, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bowles, F G (Nuneaton)
Hall, Rt. Hn. W Glenvil (Colne V[...])
Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E M
Hamilton, W W
Mort, D. L


Brookway, A. Fenner
Hannan, W.
Moyle, A


Brook, D (Halifax)
Hardman, D. R
Mulley, F W


Brooks, T J (Normanton)
Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J D


Broughton, Dr A D. D
Hargreaves, A
Nally, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, J.
Neal, H.


Brown. T J (Ince)
Hastings, Dr. Somarville
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J


Burke, W. A
Hayman, F. H.
O'Brien, T


Burton, Miss E.
Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis)
Oldfield, W H


Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Herbison, Miss M
Oliver, G H


Callaghan, James
Hewitson, Capt, M
Orbach, M


Carmichael, James
Hobson, C R.
Padley, W E


Castle, Mrs B. A
Holman, P
Paget, R T


Champion, A J
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Paling, Rt. hon W[...] (Dearne V'lly)


Chetwynd, G R
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)


Clunie, J.
Hoy, J
Pannell, T. C


Cocks, F S
Hubbard, T
Pargiter, G. A


Coldrick, W
Hudson, J. H (Eating, N.)
Parker, J


Collick, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, J.


Cooper, J (Deptford)
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Peart, T. F


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Hynd, H (Accrington)
Poole, Cecil


Ccve, W G.
Hynd, J B (Attercllffe)
Popplewell, E


Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Irvine, A J, (Edge Hill)
Porter, G.


Crawley, A.
Irving, W J (Wood Green)
Price, M. Phillps (Gloucestershire, W.)


Crosland, C. A. R
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A
Proctor, W T


Crossman, R. H. S.
Janner, B
Pryde, D J


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jay, D P T
Pursey, Comdr H


Daines, P.
Jeger, G. (Goole)
Rankin, J


Dalton, Rt. Hon H.
Jeger, Dr S W (St. Pancras, S.)
Rees, Mrs. D.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro)




Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jenkins, R H
Reeves, J


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, W (Camlachie)


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham,S)
Rhodes, H


Davies, S O (Merthyr)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Richards, R


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Robens, A


Deer, G.
Keenan, W
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Robertson, J. J (Berwick)


Diamond, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)


Dodds, N. N.
King, H. M.
Rogers, G H R (Kensington, N)


Donnelly, D.
Kinghorn, Sqn -Ldr E
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon J (W Bromwich)
Kinley, J
Royle, C.


Dye, S.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D
Shackleton, E A A.


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Lang, Rev. G.
Shaweross, Rt. Hon Sir H


Edelman, M.
Lee, F (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannook)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lever, L M (Ardwick)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, W. J (Stepney)
Lever N H (Cheetham)
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, A W J. (West Ham. N.)
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)
Slater, J.


Evans. S N (Wednasbury)
Llndgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ewart, R
Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Fairhurst, F.
Logan, D. G.
Snow, J. W.


Fernyhough, E
Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Sorensen, R. W.







Sparks, J. A.
Tomney, F
Wilcock, Group-Capt C A B


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, É.)
Turner-Samuels, M
Wilkes, L.


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L
Wilkins, W. A.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J
Usborne, Henry
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R (Vauxhall)[...]
Vernon, Maj. W F
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Stross, Dr. B.
Viant, S. P
Williams, D. J (Heath)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wallace, H. W
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Sylvester, G. O.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Rt. Han. T (Don Valley)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Weitazman, D.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H (Huyton)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, W. T (Walsall)
Winterbottom, R. E. (B[...]rightside)


Thomas, I O (Wrekin)
West, D. G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John [...](Edinbergh. E)
Woods, Rev. G. S


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, Mrs. E (E. Flint)
Wyatt, W. L


Thurtle, Ernest
While, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Yates, V. F.


Timmons, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W



Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Collindridge.

Main Question again proposed.

GOVERNMENT CONTROLS

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at the end, to add:
But humbly regret that the only contribution in the Gracious Speech to the solution of the grave financial and economic problems which confront the nation is to make permanent the wartime powers of control by regulation already enjoyed by the Government, and to extend still further the State ownership of industry, instead of using their powers to halt the process of depriving the road hauliers of their livelihood and their customers of their services and to defer the vesting date of the nationalisation of iron and steel at this critical time.
We have reached the concluding stages of our Debate upon the Government's programme for the forthcoming Session. We felt that it might be for the convenience of the House if we set down an Amendment in wide terms in which we could outline what we, at any rate, conceive to be the Government's main sins of commission and omission in the Gracious Speech. Speaking from this unaccustomed position at the Despatch Box, I am most anxious to start, at any rate, on the most uncontroversial note. I am very far from criticising all the proposals in the Gracious Speech. If I were a salmon or a sea trout I should be well satisfied with the efforts His Majesty's Ministers propose to make on my behalf. Should anyone seek to pollute my river or to poach me on a dark night, I am well satisfied that all the legislative and administrative machinery envisaged by right hon. Gentlemen opposite would be put into effect on my behalf.
We feel that, in the few hours that remain to us, we should be considering,

perhaps, some of the graver issues that are raised, and I think that, whatever else we may differ about on the two sides of the House, there is one matter referred to in this Amendment on which we should all be agreed, and that that is the gravity of the present situation—the gravity of the economic problem which confronts us, the difficulty of financing rearmament in an economy already stretched a long way. the gravity of the foreign problem, as to how we can rally the Western Powers to meet the threat which is deployed against them, and, not least, the moral problem of how we in the West can provide an alternative to that Communism which is already the effective master of very nearly the whole of Asia. I would say this, that if we failed in that last, I think we should fail in all else, too. We should be condemned to fight an endless rearguard action against the doctrines of Karl Marx, and Western civilisation and Western culture would have abandoned the possibility of giving to the world the leadership and government that it demands.
It is against that background, we believe, that the terms of the Gracious Speech should be examined, and I feel bound to say that, judged against that background, the proposals are miserably inadequate. No one could find in the terms of the Gracious Speech a very inspiring answer to the challenge of our times. Apart from a few reforms of a minor character, the main proposals are to perpetuate certain controls which the Government already possess and to extend their universal panacea of nationalisation to sugar beet refining. I believe that there are hon. Members on the benches opposite who also are disappointed with the terms of the King's Speech. They find it a somewhat timid venture into the realms of Socialism. At least, I believe I express their views when I say that. It


may be that they are, in part, satisfied with the intention of the Government to go ahead with the great programme of steel nationalisation, and also to go ahead in hounding the remaining free hauliers out of business.
A lot can be said, and no doubt will be said, about the details of the individual proposals. I intend to say something about the details of them myself. But I think that their real importance—and certainly the reason why we have brought them together in this Amendment—is not so much their individual or intrinsic merits, as that they are signposts which indicate the road which the Government are inviting us to travel. I thought that it would be convenient if at the outset of my remarks I said, very shortly, and as concisely as I could, what I think are the alternatives in front of us at this moment, and that then I could use these various illustrations—the road haulage situation, the question of controls, the matter of steel nationalisation—to illustrate my argument.
It seems to me that there are two courses open to us. I wish to state them as objectively as I can. There is, first of all, what I may call the traditional policy of this country, which hon. Members may disagree with but in which they would acknowledge that honourable men hold a belief. We hold it on these benches. We believe that the main basis of our society should be the capitalist and. broadly the competitive system: We think that private property is a respectable institution. We think that the profit motive is a useful and desirable incentive. We think that competition has an important part to play in keeping down prices. We think that monopoly, whether it is State monopoly or private monopoly, should be checked by appropriate institutions.
We think that the maximum amount of control should be exercised through the Budget and the minimum amount of control by administrative measures at the periphery. We believe that all controls and priorities ought to be under the constant supervision of the House of Commons; we should have regular opportunities of examining them and checking them, and if necessary of amending them. We believe that the proceeds of production should be widely shared, not only to support the State-run social ser-

vices, but also to encourage thrift over and above that.
A few weeks ago some of my hon. Friends published a book called "One Nation." That book dealt, if I may say so with respect, very fully and, I think many hon. Members would agree, in a most interesting manner with many of these matters which I am discussing. In that book they used a quotation which I should like to read because it is particularly appropriate to this theme. It was a quotation from Lord Randolph Churchill, who said:
Public and private thrift must animate the whole"—
that is the whole of the body politic—
for it is from public thrift that the funds for these largesses can be drawn, and it is by private thrift alone that their results can be utilised and appreciated.
That was the epitome of Tory democracy at that time, and it remains the epitome of Tory democracy today. I apologise for giving that quotation, but I think it is as well to get the background of this thing clearly in mind.
I would be the first to acknowledge that there are other views than that. There are honourable men who sincerely hold a different view of our society. Many of them are on the benches opposite. There are men who sincerely believe that the capitalist system degrades humanity: who genuinely believe that the private sector of the economy is not something to be praised and encouraged, but something to be tolerated only temporarily as a rather bitter and odious necessity: who feel that as soon as may be the privately-run industries, or most of them, should be replaced by public boards and run by public servants of distinction, varying in their composition to suit the needs of the particular industry; who think that public thrift is very often a bit of nonsense put up by the Tory Party as an excuse for cutting the social services, and that private thrift is in any event not now so much of a necessity in the Welfare State, in which everybody is looked after from the cradle to the grave.
In any event, those men who hold that view—and I say they are honourable men, and it is a view which is and can be held sincerely—wish to see the existing economic system altered as soon as may be, and the whole replaced by a Socialist economic system.
It is possible to hold either of those views, but I think it is important for political parties to make up their minds which of the two views they hold. Again, I say I believe that the majority of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to say where they stand in this matter. I believe—I hope I am right—that they believe in their Socialist economy; they want a Socialist economy in this country; I believe that they have not lost faith in nationalisation; I believe that they certainly would, if they were asked, say that they wanted to go on with the nationalisation of, say, cement. insurance, sugar, steel——

Captain Hewitson: Chemicals.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged —and of chemicals. I think that if I were to put the question to hon. Members opposite, none would rise and say that they wished to call a halt to that particular process.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies to the Debate, will give us his views about that. I should like him to say quite plainly—because after all, these matters will be challenged and fought out under our ordinary democratic system—where he stands in that matter. If, as I believe, he wishes to go forward in the way that I have described—which appears to have met with certainly general approval on the benches opposite—he will be in good company. Perhaps not good company, but at least he will have some doughty companions on the road, because of course Mr. Harry Pollitt would wish to go along that road as well. It would be at any rate interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would in reply indicate to us at what point he and Mr. Harry Pollitt would in fact part company. I have not the slightest doubt that he might, and I hope will, address a most interesting argument to the House about how he differs in the methods whereby the Socialist economy is to be attained.
But is there any, and if so what, difference in the end at which he is driving? If so, I should be very interested to hear it. Certainly it was not the view of the Minister of Health when he said at the Margate Conference that his case was "Let us do our own Socialist job ourselves." He regarded the Communist

Party, not as an organisation that was aiming at a different end, but as a rival in the process, and I wonder whether the Minister of Town and Country Planning will take the same view. At any rate, I hope he will tell us what he thinks about it when he replies.
If one wanted to know the general direction in which the party opposite was moving, I think one could not do better than study what they themselves were saying at their party conference. I believe it to be true that what parties say at their conferences the leaders of the party say, perhaps not then, but maybe next year or the year after. I think that will carry general approval. In the course of our Debate a great deal of criticism has been made about the way in which the Tory Party was supposed to have been stampeded into a resolution on 300,000 houses. The resolution on 300,000 houses at the Conservative Party Conference was chicken feed to the sort of resolutions which came out of the Margate Conference.
Let us take Willesden, East. Willesden, East, called for "a bold programme of nationalisation and socialisation." Is that what the right hon. Gentleman thinks we ought to have? I hope he will say. Then there was Salford, which wanted the introduction of "real Socialist planning"— none of this airy-fairy stuff in which the right hon. Gentleman indulges—by bringing the land, iron and steel, engineering, building, cotton, the banks and the other basic industries under State ownership.

Mr. Daines: The hon. Gentleman referred to the relationship of the party to its leader. Will he take it from me, as one who was present at Margate for most of the week, that the leader of our party stayed on the platform and listened to the debate? Will he also take it from me that the leader of our party did not find time to go to Newmarket to observe the racing.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am interested to know that the Prime Minister was not at Newmarket. Indeed, I understand he has not got a horse. If, however, he listened to the debate it will be interesting, when the Minister rises to reply, to see what happened from that debate, because no doubt he will have been instructed to tell us how far it is proposed to carry this policy.
Let me proceed with these resolutions. Bristol, West, said that the party must either move forward or decline. It called upon the National Executive Committee to formulate a Socialist policy with which to fight and win the next election, and not to woo any particular section by pursuing the middle-of-the-road policy. I would be the first to concede that the party did not get all that it asked for. It cannot say that it is going to nationalise cotton, engineering, and the banks, but I suppose that hon. Gentlemen go about their constituencies saying: "We may not look like very good revolutionaries, but, by heavens, we have got your sugar beet refineries by the throat."
I would, however, like to say a particular word to the constituency party of Bristol, West. I do not think that they need worry themselves too much about the danger of the Socialist Party pursuing for any length of time a middle-of-the-road policy. I know that there have been individual members of the Government Front Bench who have talked about a mixed economy. The Lord President of the Council has often done it—how there was a sector for private enterprise and another sector for public enterprise.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite need worry themselves that they are going to have that mixed economy for very long. After all, what did the Minister of Health say? I know that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes says rather irresponsible things. I think that the right hon. Gentleman may agree with me about that. Here I am not accusing him of irresponsibility. He was winding-up on the official policy resolution of his party, with the full approval of the National Executive and of the Government. He said:
We are on the way to Socialism, but we have not arrived. Eighty per cent. of the national economy is still in private hands and the whole public sector is poisoned by the miasma of private enterprise surrounding it everywhere.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not worry about the mixed economy. They heard his speech, and they elected him by a record majority at the top of the poll. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that view of the mixed system in this country? It was a speech well worth study, because the right hon. Gentleman

described the Labour movement as the accoucheur of the new society. Anyone who, like myself, has studied the right hon. Gentleman's views about painless birth would hesitate to employ him in any such intimate relationship.
I would not like the House to think that I am taking special or partial quotations from His Majesty's Ministers. There was The Secretary of State for the Colonies, who said that Socialists knew that the only effective way of controlling surpluses was by public ownership. Of course, they are controlling surpluses in the transport industry already by public ownership. There was no surplus left to worry them. They have satisfactorily got rid of that one.

Mr. Poole: Mr. Poole (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose——

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of interrupting me when I come to talk about the road haulier, if he can contain himself that long. The official view expressed by the platform undoubtedly was the view which hon. Gentlemen have already expressed this evening, namely, that the party should move as fast as may be and as fast as electoral possibilities will allow towards the Left.
I now want to illustrate the general point which I have been making from matters which are specifically referred to in this Amendment. Let me say at once that I do appreciate the difficulty in which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have found themselves in the matter of this control policy. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has to build an election platform on something. He is no doubt considering the possibility of sending the Chancellor of the Exchequer round the country to explain that the rising cost of living is a popular illusion not supported by a scientific study of the facts. I imagine, however, that he has rejected that course.
Equally, it would be possible to send the Minister of Health round the country to explain why people cannot have more than 200,000 houses. But then, heaven knows what else he might say. I do appreciate their difficulties. I feel—and I say this frankly and fairly—that the policy pursued by the Socialist Party at the last election of gagging the right hon.


Gentleman, or, at least, of keeping him in South Wales, was, on the whole, a wise one.
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have. I think, thought of something that is most ingenious. I compliment them on the handling of this control issue. They wish to paint to the country the following picture: They say that the choice that lies before the country is a wisely governed, carefully planned central organisation or Government, done under the aegis of great and wise statesmen—looking something like the right hon. Gentleman no doubt—or economic anarchy under the Tories. This particular theme does suggest obvious advantages. One is that they do not have to talk about Socialism at all. Socialism, on balance, has proved to be a rather unpopular issue in the country. It has another advantage —it is a theme which can be easily understood by the right hon. Gentleman's back benchers.
A member of the party to which I have the honour to belong has only to rise in his place and to suggest any possible action by the Government, and it will be met by the shrill girlish screams of the assembled ranks of economists below the Gangway, crying, "That means control, and you cannot do that." I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has put this over. I will not insult him by suggesting that he really believes the story. It is perfectly plain to me that while we are, no doubt, confronted with many great difficulties in the months and years which lie ahead—with the problem of the rearmament campaign and all the rest—the danger of having too few controls would not rank very high. I should like to make this assurance to hon. Members opposite: If, at any moment, the Conservative Party found it necessary to get more power or to exercise more control by specific controls for the implementation of some facet of its policy, it would not hesitate to come to the House of Commons and ask for that power.
May I also say this: I think that we ought to be clear about the general principles which should govern us in this matter. We believe that in great matters it is right that laws should be made by the Legislature and not by the Executive. If I am asked what I mean by great matters, I mean things like the direction of labour. We should find it intolerable

if the Government were to ask for permanent powers to direct labour in peacetime. That is a thing which we think should not be tolerated, and in that I think we are supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to give the House an assurance on that. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has been given in another place."] I am not concerned with what happens in another place. I ask that we shall have the assurance. I know that the Lord Chancellor has expressed the view of something he thought should be done, but I want an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on what he knows will be done, and in the clearest and most specific terms.
The other point about controls is this. We believe that the House of Commons should have a regular opportunity of checking the controls and the powers which are granted, and of curtailing them if necessary, and of demanding from Ministers an account of how these powers are exercised and why they want them continued. We should certainly like to have the right hon. Gentleman's views upon that matter. We believe that the right place to take a dispute, as between the subject and the Crown, is the courts of justice, not some tribunal which, in the words of the Attorney-General, is an excuse for "blowing off steam." If I may summarise my remarks, we say that lawmaking is a matter for the Legislature, and that the judicial processes are a matter for the King's courts. That is the constitutional principle for which we stand.
We feel that this desire for centralised controls is part and parcel of the same process that is going on with nationalisation. We believe it is a desire to build up a Socialist economy. There is nationalisation of the sugar beet refineries, but I do not think I need say a great deal about that. The "Economist" summed it up rather well, when it said that it is a ridiculous gesture in support of a bad principle. There is the continued intention to nationalise the steel industry. That is a Marxist solution, and all the reasons which are advanced are Marxist reasons, namely, to attain economic power. Why should we go on doing the things which please the Russians? If anyone were to ask the Kremlin what policy they would like us to pursue with


steel, I have not the slightest doubt they would say that we should put it under a public corporation, one member of which has been a Communist agent in this country for 10 years, and no member of which has had any experience at all in making steel.
I want to quote, as an illustration of my argument, what has happened in the case of the road hauliers. It is possible to see here, not as a matter of theory but of practice, what Socialism really means. It will be within the recollection of the House that under the Transport Act an artificial limit of 25 miles was placed upon the field of operations of transport hauliers, and that beyond that they were not allowed to operate without the permission of the British Transport Commission. Notice has just been served on no less than 5,300 of these hauliers that these permits are to be revoked. Virtually, their business will be halved, and probably the majority of them will be driven out of business. They will have to choose between competing either within the narrow confines of the 25-mile radius, or applying to be acquired by the British Transport Commission.
I want the House to notice the way this is being done. First of all, there is the picture given by the Government of what is happening—the British Transport Commission, a large responsible organisation with a great public servant at its head, with its judicial decisions taken after weighing the needs of the public, on the one hand, and the question of justice, on the other. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is not what is happening at all. What is happening is that the British Transport Commission has abdicated its responsibilities in this matter, handing them over to the Road Haulage Executive.
I have here a circular which has been sent down to the local group managers. They are invited to draw up a list of the permits which are to be granted and those which are to be revoked. These are men who are in direct competition with the hauliers concerned, and that is where the responsibility lies at the present time. Instructions are also given in this circular, in the clearest possible terms, that the majority of the permits are to be revoked. The only circumstances in which one is to be granted is that, for one reason or another, the traffic is so

unremunerative that it could not be carried by the British Transport Commission at a profit. I say that this is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the British Transport Commission.
Moreover, the matter does not even end there, because, with the removal of all competition from independent hauliers, there is no limit at all upon the amount to which the road rates of this nationalised monopoly can be raised against the consumer. If there is any limit, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what it is. I am willing to give way for him to give the answer. The only answer may be the transport tribunal, but it has no jurisdiction. At this moment, they can raise their road rates to any height they like. The Lord President of the Council tried to say the other day that there was the consumer councils, but even if they were any good, they have not yet been set up.
By the Transport Act, the British Transport Commission has got into its hands an unfettered monopoly. There is no machinery whatsoever for protecting the consuming public against the exercise of these monopolistic powers. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name anyone that can help them in this matter. One can argue these things upon their intrinsic merits. I find it difficult to speak of these road hauliers without a feeling of anger at the way they have been treated, but I have had other opportunities of speaking about transport.
Tonight, I say that what is happening in transport is a practical illustration of Socialism. This is what it really means, and people in other industries will do well to look at what is happening in the field of transport. The issue which divides us is not a mean one; it is whether we wish to go forward with the Socialist conception of society, or whether, on our part, we should hold to what we regard as the more traditional methods. We think that when a great nation begins to accept the ideas and institutions of its enemies, it begins to totter to decay. We say, stop borrowing your ideas from the East and your political philosophy from a German political economist. We have a great Imperial tradition. We have taught half the world the meaning of democratic government. That is not a tradition we should lightly squander and cast away. We, for our part, intend to remain true to it.

Mr. Leather: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The House would wish me, and I gladly do so, to congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) upon the speech that he has just delivered from the Despatch Box opposite. I thoroughly enjoyed it; it was an interesting utterance. At the outset the hon. Gentleman stated some of the general points of difference which exist between the opinions held on the Government side of the House and the opinions held by the Opposition. He set them out quite accurately and effectively. He said, for example, that there were hon. Members on this side who regarded a capitalist society as a degrading form of society, and that upon that question there was a vital distinction between the opinions held on this side and the opinions held on the other side of the House. What do we say about that? We say that upon the evidence and the facts of history, capitalist society, when permitted to develop under its own steam and by its own methods, did prove itself to be a degrading society, which is the reason why we are here on this side of the House, and in such large numbers.
The hon. Member also referred to the fact that the Opposition were against any form of monopoly. He appeared to preach a kind of distributism. But, again, the capitalist economy of this country developed steadily in the direction of monopoly under the control and dispensation of hon. Members opposite. While that development was going on, and as the capitalist economy became more and more monopolistic and tyrannical in its effect, no kind of protest was made by the party opposite. On the contrary, they saw the process as a digging in of their power. They saw in it the creation and development of their opportunity. What do we say on this side of the House? We say that if monopoly there is to be—and present technical processes in large part demand monopoly—let it be a public monopoly, controlled by the people of the country exercising their sovereign powers in Parliament. After all, in the case of the nationalised industries the Minister responsible is answerable to Parliament.
Again, the hon. Gentleman—and I repeat, his was a speech which I greatly

enjoyed—referred to resolutions which came before the Labour Party Conference in Margate. In doing so, he put his finger upon an excellent feature in our party organisation, which distinguishes us from the Conservative Party. It may possibly be that some of the resolutions put up at the Labour Party Conference are somewhat inexpert in their expression. But they are the authentic, democratic views of the members of a democratic party, and they develop the policy for all of us. In the last resort, our policy is formulated and developed out of the resolutions which come from local parties representing local opinion. That is not the case with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their policy is imposed from above by their Leader, and it is a policy on which Lord Woolton has to spend a few uncertain moments in determining whether to accept it or not. In deciding to accept it, he has landed the Conservative Party in a situation which, as it develops, may confront them with great difficulties.
The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Monmouth shows the fundamental distinction which will exist between the Labour and Conservative Parties in the coming months and years. We believe in the necessity for substantial controls. As quickly as possible they want to get rid of controls. On this subject of controls, I venture to put the point that any effectual development of a housing policy demands and requires controls and even an extension of controls. What I object to in the outlook of the Conservative Party is that one day they are presenting insubstantial arguments to defend the target of 300,000 houses, and the next day are arguing against those very controls which are necessary to ensure that that number of houses, or anything like it, are built for the people who need them. We say that extensive and effective controls—the subject of the Amendment—are an absolutely fundamental necessity to any effective housing policy.
We are not accepting 200,000 houses per year as a final target. There is all the difference in the world between a realistic statement of what we hope to achieve with the economic resources available under the circumstances of the time, and an attempt to get a greater number of houses built. We can only do it by methods of control which hon. Members


opposite, in the Amendment, are decrying. For my part, if I may develop this theme in a very few sentences, I want to see the creation of special areas for housing, in which special emergency measures will be taken. I want to see the boundaries of these special areas established and their limits determined by reference to the ratio of the number of applications for houses in the locality and the number of houses being built. Where the number of houses being built is below a certain proportion of the applications on the housing list I want special areas to be created where special measures can be taken.

Mr. Jennings: Would the hon. Member say what percentage he has in mind in relation to the number being built and the number of applications on the waiting list?

Mr. Irvine: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's desire for a percentage, and my candid answer is that I have not got the material available with which to give him a definite answer. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has all the facts, but I cannot give the hon. Member a particular proportion. I could if I had all the information the Minister has.
It may be said that the method I have suggested, of determining the boundaries of these special housing areas, is unsatisfactory. Objections can be raised to it, but it is easier to raise objections than to build houses. I know of no better method. It can be said that the list of housing applicants is not necessarily a sound test of local housing needs, but I know of no better test. It can be said, if a special area is defined in the way I suggest, that the people situated just outside the area will be unfairly treated in comparison with those situated just within it. No doubt these are real difficulties, but I would still have these special areas created.
When I turn to consider the policy which I would apply to these areas I find that under every head I require directional control. The first thing I would do would be to place a veto for two or three years upon commercial, non-industrial building in these areas—a total veto. I say "nonindustrial" because I believe that a job is just as important for a man as a house, and I am not willing to cut down factory

building or anything that will affect the maintenance of full employment. The building of shops, stores, dance halls, cinemas or amusement palaces in those areas should be vetoed altogether. That would involve a complete control. The National Production Authority of the United States has placed such a ban upon pleasure palaces and places of amusement and what they describe as "dude ranches." There is the great, private enterprise economy of the United States placing a ban upon that form of construction, because shortages of materials exist. I should have thought that that would have recommended itself to hon. Members opposite.
I would also like to see the local authorities in those special areas given power to control the letting of houses that fall vacant. That would involve directional control. I will be told by hon. Members opposite that that is an unwarrantable interference with liberty and with the rights of property. That is what the neo-Liberals of the Tory Party say.
But I reply that, like other hon. Members, I have constituents who fought in Burma, Africa, France and Germany, and who are still without a house. With their children, they are sleeping five or six in a single bedroom. They are lucky if they have two beds in the room. There may be a tuberculosis sufferer among them. Many hon. Members have that kind of thing in their constituencies, but I have it perhaps particularly badly in my division. I cannot too strongly emphasise the extent of the hardship which is being imposed upon those families as the result of existing housing conditions. Compared with that suffering, the interference with property rights involved in a local authority's taking control of the letting of houses falling vacant is a very small matter.
My point is that the policy which I seek to develop requires controls, and is, therefore, hostile to the spirit and intention of the Amendment. In those special areas—here, quite frankly, I differ from many of my hon. Friends—I would accept a carefully controlled modification of housing standards. The Minister of Health is dead against that and so are a great number of my hon. Friends. It is a matter upon which different views can be held. It is a fact that my divisional Labour Party unanimously support me in


this controversial view I am expressing about standards of housing. If the consequences of modifying those standards were to increase the availability of houses, I would be prepared to accept some carefully controlled reduction of standards in these special areas.
In passing, let me say that this question of housing standards really poses a false dilemma. I should have thought that the army of architects, designers and experts which the Minister of Health has at his hand could easily develop a house capable of accommodating two families for a period while this extreme shortage exists, which could be reconditioned later, at small expense, to house one family in happier times. I would have an extension of the exercise of the powers of requisitioning of unoccupied houses. Here again, the proposal, which I regard as of great importance, is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Tory Amendment, but I think it is demanded by the crying need of these families. If I am told that requisitioning is an invasion of property rights and individual rights, once again I say that that inconvenience is as nothing compared with the sufferings of the overcrowded families.
Finally, I believe it would be possible in the special areas to develop model incentive schemes for building workers. The schemes might not be immediately acceptable to the country as a whole, but in those areas they could be experimented with and developed. In that way, I would seek to develop an expanding building programme. On this Amendment, my point is that every feature demands and requires some measure of directional control. It is upon that issue that this House and the country have to make up their minds. Yesterday, many of us heard the inspiring speech of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George). She made a speech in the true Radical tradition, which made it abundantly plain that in the Liberal Party there are still some—I am afraid they are in a minority—true Radicals left. I had great hopes of the Chief Liberal Whip, who is an old friend of mine, but he went into the opposite Lobby. He shuffled down that Lobby with the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), in a lurid procession of reactionaries.
Hon. Members opposite are always trying to woo the Liberal Party on this

issue. I see opposite me the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He has often spoken upon the matter of the direction of labour. Never was there such a diehard wolf in a Liberal sheepskin as he. Although I am inclined to agree with him upon the particular issue of the direction of labour——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why did the hon. Member vote for it?

Mr. Irvine: I would not exclude the possibility of circumstances arising when it might be advisable to keep that power in reserve. There is certain to be an extension of defence establishments, military, naval and air force, in the country as the result of our programme of rearmament. That might involve the diversion away from Merseyside—to take that as an example—of valuable building labour and material. I am only going the length of saying that the labour position in such an event would deserve careful and conscientious study. I am not going to permit anything to occur which will have the effect of cutting down the already inadequate steps being taken to house the overcrowded families in Liverpool and in my constituency.
The issue which I have attempted to describe is a clear one and I am glad that in the King's Speech the Government have made it abundantly clear where they stand upon this momentous question of our times.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I hope that the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) will forgive me if I do not follow the many interesting arguments which he has put before the House about housing, Socialism, and Conservatism. I wish to confine my remarks to the case of the 5,300 road hauliers whose original permits are being revoked in four to six months' time and whose operations will thereby be limited to a 25 miles radius, as provided in Section 52 of the Transport Act, 1947, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) alluded.
I hope that this honourable House consists of men and women who are practical people and who deal with practical matters in a practical way but it is no bad thing if, now and then, they cast


their minds back to the more theoretical arguments of politics and consider for a while the sort of arguments which used to be discussed thousands of years ago by Aristotle or Plato, and some of which still hold good. In considering the very practical problem of the 5,300 original permit holders whose permits are being revoked, I would ask hon. Members for a moment to remember the old argument about the difference between deductive and inductive thinking and the dangers of deductive thinking.
Deductive thought may be described as the fixing of one's general principle first and deducing from it how to act in a given circumstance; such as saying that all men are equal, that one man is, therefore, as good as another and that if I have the toothache I might just as well go to the blacksmith as to the dentist. On the other hand, inductive thought is quite the reverse. It means starting from one's experience and building up one's principle from it; to take the example which I took, saying that a dentist has more practical experience than a blacksmith in dealing with teeth, and, therefore, that all men are not equal on all occasions.
It seems to me that ever since the Transport Act, 1947, many hon. Members opposite, and the British Transport Commission in particular, have been guilty of deductive thinking of the very worst kind in connection with the Act, because they have picked on one word in Section 3 of the Act and elevated it into a principle by which they seem to be deducing all their actions. The word is "integrated" and occurs in the phrase:
… properly integrated system of public inland transport.…
That word seems to have been made into a principle, or even a magical formula, by which any absurity can be perpetrated.
In the name of the blessed word "integration" all sorts of most extraordinary things have been done in the transport world. West countrymen have been promoted and sent to the Scottish Region quite regardless of what is to become of their families under the wonderfully improved housing system about which the Minister of Health is so proud, and quite regardless of the fact that such men, when taken to Scotland, are just as much in a foreign country as

if they had been taken to Timbuctoo. To give another example, in adopting standards of signalling on railways an average appears to have been taken rather than the adoption of the best practices. Certainly, as far as the Western Region is concerned, practices have been introduced in connection with permanent way checks which many experienced drivers regard not as the safest but as a derogation of safety practices.
The same sort of thing seems to me to happen in the name of integration to the transport drivers on the road. Section 53 of the Transport Act appears to be interpreted as meaning that there is a duty upon the Transport Commission, through their deputies, the Road Haulage Executive, to carry out a wholesale slaughter of original permit holders. If hon. Members would look at the wording of the Act they will find that that is a broad interpretation of what is there written but that it cannot really be interpreted in that way. It seems to be thought that this slaughter should be carried out at the earliest possible moment regardless of whatever may be the consequences on the hauliers or their customers.
There are about 12,000 original permits, and of that large number only 3,800 are to remain, 2,700 are to be modified and 5,300 are to be revoked. Can it possibly be said that the Road Haulage Executive can provide an alternative public service cheaper and more convenient than that provided by the 5,300 road hauliers whose businesses are being written off at the stroke of a pen? If it can, why is it that these businesses are still in existence, because they have been in competition with the Road Haulage Executive for some time?
Although one could understand a number of businesses which were uneconomic and were running at a loss carrying on for sentimental reasons one cannot imagine such a large figure as 5,300 businesses being carried on, especially when one hears that they involve something like 25,000 vehicles. Is this an attempt to provide the people of this country with a better service, or is it merely an attempt to make a bigger and better monopoly? It is true that the displaced persons, if we may so describe them, have certain rights under the Act. They can require notice of acquisition to


be given by the Commission under Section 54, but only if they can prove substantial interference. The Section reads:
Substantial interference with the carrying on by the applicant for or holder of the permit of some activity which was, before the twenty-eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-six, being carried on by him or by his predecessors in, or in any part of, his undertaking, and has, up to the time of the refusal, the imposition of limitations or conditions or the revocation, as the case may be, continued to be so carried on, with only such intermissions, if any, as are incidental to the nature of the activity.
That is a long and complicated sentence and it is obvious that it is a long and complicated provision to prove. I can imagine the field day which lawyers in the courts or at tribunals will have in trying to decide what is a "substantial interference" in any particular case. True, if acquisition is obtained by the Commission, then compensation is payable to the road haulier. But surely, after our experience of this Act, we have realised by this time that its compensation clauses are somewhat cumbersome. To return to the simile of the dentist, the compensation provisions of this Act seem to me as if we are asking the blacksmith to make a dental extraction with his tongs: they seem only too likely to be cumbersome, painful, slow and ineffective.
A large number of road haulage businesses have already been nationalised. From time to time we on this side of the House have asked how many of those have been paid for and the transfer completed. I am not talking about those who did it by negotiation, but about those who resisted and were forcibly nationalised. I do not know the most up-to-date figure, but the last time that question was asked there was a substantial number of cases still not settled. I know of one case in my division of a man whose business was nationalised compulsorily in April, 1949, and he has not had his final payment yet. That is the way in which, and the pace at which, these compensation provisions work.
It may not be the fault of the Commission in all cases. No doubt some of these men who have been nationalised are rather difficult customers. I do not suppose they are pleased about it. Nevertheless, the compensation provisions are extremely complicated and it is not sufficient merely to say, "They will get compensation."

Mr. Poole: Is it not a fact that the compensation is based, first, on the value of the assets taken over and, second, on the net profits of the undertaking over certain years? The first, I imagine is easily ascertainable by the normal methods, but is it not the case that, wherever difficulty has arisen, it has been through the failure on the part of the operator to keep proper books or, in some cases, to keep two sets of books?

Mr. Wilson: There may be such cases. Certainly, there have been many cases of delay. The point is that if we take away a man's business, he must have his compensation within a reasonable time.
We ought to consider who are the people who are to have their licences revoked, and what they think about it. Of course, if they do not apply for compensation, do not seek to be acquired, but seek to continue to carry on their businesses within the 25-mile limit, it is still open to the Railway Executive or the Road Haulage Executive to have a shot at them on the next occasion on which they come up for a licence. The experience of road hauliers often is that they get both barrels of the gun: they are attacked by both Executives and have to carry on a two-to-one fight against them.
Many of these 5,300 are small men and sometimes women, some have a number of lorries, others have only one. Some of them are one-man businesses, similar to the one-man business referred to in the housing debate yesterday. They have built up their businesses out of their own savings, with nothing but their own skill and ability. I have here two specific examples, neither from my own constituency.
The first is an extract from the "Yorkshire Evening Post" of 27th October, 1950. It says:
Grey-haired grizzled Jim Barker, of Leeds, has just received a letter which, in one sentence, destroys his 30-year-old one-man, one-vehicle, haulage business. 'A lifetime's work gone,' said Jim, who lives in Greenmount Street, 'just because the Socialists can't stand up to competition.' Jim is one of the hundreds of small road hauliers in the Leeds area who have had their permits to operate outside a 25-mile radius revoked by the Road Haulage Executive of the British Transport Commission. He faces disaster through the decision. Revocation of his permit means that 90 per cent. of his trade now stops. 'There is no hope of getting short-distance work,' he said


today. In 1920, Jim sank his savings in an old Army truck. Now, at 56, he has a shining new five-ton truck.
The second is a letter from a widow:
Dear Sir, Could you please advise me what to do, this business is all I have to live on, all my savings are in this business, my late husband died in May, 1948, we both worked hard together to keep this haulage going, we have been 20 years contractors to the Atlas Stone Company, Whaddon, Royston, Hens, and I am still their contractor. Surely, they won't take my living away.
As to how these people are thought of by some of their customers, let me read an extract from a firm which employs small contractors:
We recently had our attention drawn to a flagrant instance of wastage. A driver in a nationalised concern was given three days to do a journey which a little man of our acquaintance would, by setting out very early in the morning, have done in one day.

Mr. Pargiter: The letter does not say, of course, whether the little man who would get up early in the morning would preserve the conditions of the Road Traffic Act?

Mr. Wilson: That is a point, but I was showing that these small businesses have continued because they have given service. Had they not given such a service, they would have disappeared long ago and their forcible removal is to be deprecated. These are the sort of people whom it is sought to displace.
All my connections have been with the railways. I have no connections with the road haulage business and I believe in the future of rail transport. I would like to see it continue to provide cheap and convenient transport for the public and a decent living for the men who have grown up in that industry. However, I feel sure that all railwaymen would agree with me that they would not wish to bolster up their own industry by filching halfpenny packets of traffic from other concerns, if it means taking the bread out of the mouths of widows—and that is what is happening in this case.
In supporting the Amendment, I appeal to the Minister of Transport to have another look at this matter and at the actions that are being taken by the Road Haulage Executive in the cancellation of permits. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not give a direction to modify the policy that is being pursued. After all, it is a great maxim

of our country that not only should justice be done but that it should appear to be done.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I hope that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) will forgive me if I do not follow his topic, because the main subject of the Debate relates to the supersession of the system under which we have been governed since 1939. Although I must take full responsibility for Government policy, because I supported it at the time, I feel that in the administration of that policy it is vital that small men should get a square deal. Many hon. Members on the Labour side of the House have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view, because they have come across cases of grave hardship, and it is in the administration of the Act that so much can be done.
Mr. Speaker, I feel almost like asking your indulgence on the occasion of my maiden speech, because these surroundings are strange to one who was in the last House. Of the two or three main points I wish to make, the first is this: I think that the Opposition should generously acknowledge this fact—that the main case which has been made over years has now been accepted by the Government, namely, that it is recognised that there is a great gulf between property and personal liberty. As I understand it, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who is to wind up the Debate, will deal specifically with the issue of direction of labour.
The case which, as many Members of the House will remember, was fought with great bitterness in 1947, was whether or no, in time of peace, permanent powers of direction of labour should be granted to a Government. As I understand the position—and I put this quite specifically to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply—the Government say, "We will not include in the Bill which is foreshadowed in the King's Speech any power of direction of labour." I understand that to be the position, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement, with the authority of the Cabinet behind him, when he concludes the Debate tonight.
That being so, and that great case having been given, it seems to me that one ought to have an open mind and to wait


to see the Bill which the Government are to produce. It is wholly wrong to inflate party political passion at this moment. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), is not present, because I listened with great interest and with an enormous amount of agreement to his speech, but the appalling thing about this House, in which I must be in a minority of one on this subject, is that all the speeches that are made appear to me to be inflamed by party political passions instead of considering the overriding interests of the unity of the country at a moment which. I say now, is as dangerous as any moment since 1940. That being so, we should be exceedingly glad that the Government are bringing to an end Defence Regulations, which bear back for years, and that they will tell us in a Bill exactly what they want in the way of powers to provide for full employment and for an expanding economy.
0
As to controls, it is absolutely useless to suggest that the grant of certain forms of controls over property is a form of totalitarianism. That kind of argument carries no conviction whatever in the modern world. I speak as a young man, and I am bound to say this: I have some sympathy with the case, which ought to be made constantly from the Liberal benches, that under a Tory or Socialist Government a young man would come up against one form of monopoly or another The fact is that the Government require controls for an enormous number of purposes.
The issue is—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth—how are we to administer those controls? The fact that controls are needed in relation to a wide number of subjects will really be accepted, and has been accepted, by right hon. Gentlemen like the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), over a very long period of years, and I recognise that. The issue is: How are those controls administered, what protection exists for the individual, and what steps are taken to maximise incentive?
In my submission, controls are needed, not only in time of shortage, but also because of the system of modern industrial civilisation which tends to produce monopoly. But we must recognise that controls are terribly dangerous in themselves. It must be remembered that they

are operated by officials and that the ordinary person who wishes, by working hard and by using ingenuity, to acquire a living for himself and to build up something for his children, must have some kind of a chance to operate on his own and must not find himself frustrated by the ipse dixit of an administrator.
That seems to me to be absolutely clear, and, therefore, I say, so far as concerns the Bill which we await, that the provisions of that Bill will be very carefully scrutinised by those who care for freedom; that, if it be the case, we welcome the fact that direction of labour will be excluded entirely from the Bill. One further point which I address to the Minister is that if he can say anything on the subject of direction of labour in general, I am sure it will be anxiously awaited by the country.
The main point which I wish to make in relation to the King's Speech is quite relevant to the Amendment which we are discussing. We are asking ourselves what we can do to improve our position in the world and to increase the housing target —to produce 300,000 houses instead of 200,000—and I am quite sure that hon. Members of the Labour Party are just as anxious as anyone to produce 300.000 houses if it can be done.

Mr. John Rodgers: They did not show it last night.

Mr. Blackburn: With great deference, one does not necessarily show things by voting on matters on which there is a normal party division.
I have a challenge for the hon. Member, and also for right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches. There is one sure way to increase productivity and, by increasing productivity and improving our position in the world, to be able to buy more timber, to be able to produce more houses, to be able to buy more meat, and to enable the Englishman, wherever he goes in the world, once again to stand and to have people say of him, "There is the representative of the most thriving country in the world." There is one way, and one way only, and that is by working longer hours.

Mr. Jack Jones: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Member got the sack for saying that.

Mr. Blackburn: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. J. Jones) for saying that. I made the point upstairs in the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, where we had a most distinguished gathering, including Sir Geoffrey Heyworth, of Lever Brothers, Sir Charles Colston, of Hoovers, Ltd., Sir Thomas Hutton and Mr. Lincoln Evans. I asked Mr. Lincoln Evans this very question—and I do not think that hon. Members opposite will tell me that he is a man whose word can be lightly disregarded. I asked, "Is it not a fact that the quickest way to increase productivity now is for us all to go out and ask for longer hours of work—say, six hours of work per week—on terms to he approved by the trade union movement? "

Mr. J. Jones: Mr. Lincoln Evans, who happens to be the general secretary of the union which represents the members of an industry which has shown the way to increase productivity, could give a very simple answer: that the men in that industry were working a continuous working week of 168 hours out of 168 hours, giving 1,500,000 tons more steel than ever in history, under the firm promise of nationalisation, socialism, and fair shares for all.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member, who, I know perfectly well, really agrees with what I am saying, has made an amazing answer, which I do not wish to deal with because I do not desire to take any part in party politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "No?"] I assure the House that I have no desire to take any part in party politics or to have the red herring of nationalisation dragged across the main point which I wish to make, namely, that it is the duty of hon. Members on all sides to go to their constituencies and to advocate longer hours of working upon terms to be agreed by the trade union movement. If hon. Members get up with tears in their eyes and tell me about the intolerable housing conditions—which I venture to say, I know as well as they do—then the way to get those tears out of their eyes is to go back to their constituents and to say that with that overall increase of production which would result, we should be able to produce not 300,000 houses but many more than 300,000.
Let me say a word in amplification. I remember raising this point when the miners were going back to a five day week and there was a debate in the House. The

right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer very kindly gave way to enable me to make a three-minute speech, and I then said that the miners ought to go back to a five and a half day week and that if they did so, they would produce 210 million tons of coal a year. Many hon. Members will remember that I said that and it proved correct.

Mr. J. Jones: I said it five years ago.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member was on the same side then. The miners are a very exclusive party and I will not welcome any additions to my party.
It is undoubtedly a fact and was accepted by Sir Geoffrey Haworth that if people worked longer hours we would get a great increase in productivity. About that there can be no doubt whatsoever and it is monstrous for us to debate as if there were a national cake which we could not increase. The great issue is how we shall increase the size of the national cake.
On one occasion the Prime Minister made a tentative appeal, which has never been followed up, for extended working hours. It has been suggested to me that this matter should probably be put on a national basis. One could almost imagine a situation in which we would say to the workers, "For the sake of the country let employers and workers give one hour of their time to Britain." If an appeal of that kind were made, I believe it would be accepted. For at least two years I have advocated this course; I have advocated it at mass meetings of workers in my constituency and I have never known an unfavourable reception.
This is a time for leadership and great leadership can be given by the Government and supported by the Opposition. This country can make a colossal name for itself in the world by showing that, after all we have been through and all the sacrifices our people have made in the interests of fair shares, we have just as much guts as were ever shown in the world and that, on proper terms, our workpeople are prepared to work another four or six hours a week for the sake of the country.

7.43 p.m.

Lord Dunglass: The hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) has raised a question and stated a theme


which has our sympathy. He has learned, although I think he has learned rather late, that the secret of expansion for this country lies in the earning of new wealth rather than in the distribution of the wealth which is already existing. Although I do not intend to follow him in the methods he proposes to achieve this expansion of wealth, nevertheless, that is a truth he has uttered to which His Majesty's Government should certainly give the most serious attention.
It would have been optimistic and unreasonable in the present conditions of political deadlock, to expect too much from the King's Speech, but I did look at it in the hope that there would be an awareness on the part of His Majesty's Government of the social problems which are being created by over-centralisation and over-control. I also looked at it in the hope that His Majesty's Government would have shown some willingness to restrain the growing power of the Executive over the individual citizen. In fact there has been little sign of that in the Gracious Speech and still less sign in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite during this Debate.
I cannot remember very far back, but even as far as I and other hon. Members can remember, we have seen the whole pattern of government in Europe change. That is an historical fact. Time after time in this century governments have been elected after going through all the democratic processes, only after a short time to use their power to impress their will and impress their theories and to control not only the people's minds but the people's lives. I should have thought, if there is a lesson to be learned from the 20th century, it is that power corrupts just as certainly as ever it did, and that no class of person is immune. Very often this is called the age of the common man, but this age has produced more tyrants than were ever produced in history before. Nor are Socialists immune and I believe they hoped and genuinely thought they would be immune.
I think the right hon. Gentleman claims a power and exercises a patronage which would have been the envy of a great many people who have sat in this ancient House. As we look at the broad picture of the way in which government is developing, not only in this country but in Western civilisation, we are bound to

admit that the greatest boon which could come to the ordinary people of the world would be if their governments would learn to use restraint and discretion in the use of power and to use their power for high purpose.
In this country I think it would be generally agreed that the greatest power given to our Government comes through extensive nationalisation and the public ownership of industry. It is not true that the Government as an employer owns only great material assets, capital assets; in a sense they own the men and women who work in those industries. I am going to argue the case for a standstill in nationalisation not on the economic grounds—that has been done often and the arguments are familiar, both generally and in the particular case of iron and steel—but from the social implications which are bound to flow from extensive nationalisation, which is bound to affect the ordinary working men in those industries and organised labour as a whole.
I do not know whether it is generally appreciated how far nationalisation and State control have gone. In the coal industry 730,000 workmen are affected, in transport 900,000, in the electricity and gas industries 295,000 and, if we bring the steel industry under central Government control, there may be something like 150,000 people added—perhaps a quarter of a million, I make a conservative estimate, but I think a quarter of a million would be nearer. We have reached a stage where there are nearly two million working people in the nationalised industries which, as far as I can calculate, represents something like 11 per cent. of the insured working people of this country. In the Gracious Speech it is proposed to add the sugar refining factories and the Prime Minister said that this was a small thing. But that is the traditional excuse for anything of doubtful origin or repute.
The point I wish to make is that at present, with all the social implications of extensive nationalisation which I intend to mention, it seems to me that there is no case for putting one more man of family under this centralised system. The fact that the Government propose even this small addition to nationalisation would seem to suggest that they have completely failed to appreciate the social


significance and the social implications which are flowing from extensive nationalisation. Several hon. Members on the other side of the House have talked about extensive monopolies and the evils which flow from them, but these great State monopolies exercise powers which are new to us in this country, and which give them a very peculiar control over the people who work in them.
Let us face the important fact that there are monopolies. There is only one boss, one set of conditions. I have opportunity in my constituency to observe. If a working man is discontented with his conditions a change from Edinburgh to Nottingham, or from the Lanarkshire coalfield to Nottingham, or from the railway centre of Carstairs to Bristol, makes not one jot of difference; he finds himself under the same boss and the same system. These conditions of uniformity existing in these great monopolies are, from my observation, creating a mass psychology which will, and is already beginning to lead to a mass reaction. In these monopolies what is the grievance of one is in a very literal sense the grievance of all.
I constantly find that a miner or railwayman who has a personal grievance finds it extremely difficult and a tedious tiresome business to bring that grievance to the person who can decide it; that between the grievance and a decision there is layer after layer of officialdom both in the unions and in these nationalised monopolies. When one finds this uniformity of conditions married to these difficulties of the individual, we are—I give the right hon. Gentleman this warning—getting into a situation in which there will be a great number of large strikes and widespread discontent arising out of small individual beginnings. The greatest act of political wisdom at this moment would be for the Government to review all the existing nationalisation schemes with a view to decentralisation. That would seem to me to be at any rate a beginning.
But I wish to build my plea for a standstill in nationalisation on still further social complications in these nationalised industries. What is to be the status of a State employee, and what are to be his rights? I am certain that when the miners entered so light-heartedly and after so much campaigning into a nationalized

industry, they did not realise what nationalisation would turn out to be. They genuinely believed, as I believe hon. Members opposite genuinely believed, that when nationalisation was a fact, no one would have any real grievance and there would never be any need for a strike.

Mr. George Thomas: They are better off than ever they were, and they know it.

Lord Dunglass: Unhappily no miner, certainly no railwayman, now has any illusions that there is any guarantee whatever that the State will be a good employer.

Mr. Thomas: Come Rhondda.

Lord Dunglass: At the moment we have rising costs, when it will be very difficult to hold down prices, we shall find the Government no longer an arbiter in the case of industrial disputes but in an interested position, an interested party. What is more, the Government will be interested in keeping down costs and therefore in keeping down wages. In those circumstances what are the rights and status of an individual, and how far will his legally constituted trade unions be able to represent his rights? All hon. Members have to face up to these questions if we are to have large nationalised monopolies in this country.

Mr. J. Jones: Will the noble Lord further his argument by telling the House how it was that at the last General Election, after the experience of nationalisation, particularly in the mining industry and in the railway industry, and after the promise of nationalisation in the steel industry, in every mining, railway and steel constituency in this country Labour candidates were returned to this House with increased majorities?

Lord Dunglass: Not in every constituency by any means.
I am trying to bring before the House a serious argument. It was natural that the miners, who have for 50 years campaigned for nationalisation, should still believe in it, certainly beyond the last election, but they are beginning to have doubts, as are the railwaymen. The reason is because, as I have explained,


the individual members find it extraordinary difficult to get their grievances considered in any reasonable time. Further, they are beginning to doubt whether their trade union leaders can properly represent their needs and claims in a nationalised industry.
Let me present to hon. Members opposite the very real dilemma which already exists in the early days of nationalisation. We have the Trades Union Congress which is affiliated to a political party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—perhaps affiliated is the wrong word, but it is at any rate closely connected with and respectably wedded to—that pleases hon. Members—the political party which happens to form the Government of the day. Individual miners and railwaymen are beginning to ask themselves whether, with their leaders as members of the executive, and with their leaders pledged to carry out the executive's policy, it is really possible for them properly to represent the needs and claims of the individual. They have been quick to see that in a nationalised industry it is quite possible that their elected trade union leaders may become Government "stooges."
There is one more point which all hon. Members should consider. So far, every strike that has arisen in a nationalised industry has, rather conveniently for the Socialist Government and hon. Members opposite, I am bound to confess, been written off as an unofficial strike inspired by the Communists. It needs no gift of prophecy to forecast that one of these days there will be a strike in which the claims have merit and in which there is substance in the grievance. We have to look forward. We must make up our minds on this point. How far, in those circumstances, can the Government of the day tolerate opposition from organised labour? It has not escaped the notice of the workpeople in the nationalised industries that the other day the Attorney-General, the first Law Officer of the Crown, was forced to double up the two positions of prosecutor and part-time owner.
I do not know the answer to the question whether organised labour can properly represent the individuals in the nationalised industry. I probably have a better chance of giving the answer than hon. Members opposite, because I have

thought about it more. They have never thought about it, and were not ready or willing to think about it all this time. But we have to think about these things, and my plea is this. We do not know the answers, and it is just because we do not know the answers to these questions that I say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope he will give a reply on these points —that there is no justification for putting one more workman under the hazards of nationalisation, or one more family, until we have had time to assess the value of this great social experiment.
I have made my plea for a standstill and I now wish to say something I have been very anxious to say for some time. In passing, I would say there is one more method of this great build-up of power which is the central theme of what I am talking about, and that is the assumption of direct control which has been dealt with by other people. I would say this to hon. Gentlemen opposite, echoing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) who opened the Debate. Some controls there must be. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said, I think yesterday, that the difference between the party on this side of the House and the party on the other side was that we believe in minimum control and hon. Gentlemen opposite believe in maximum control. If we are to have the maximum, if we are to have a totally planned economy, then hon. Members opposite must face the fact that we shall need direction of labour. Against that we take an absolute stand. We think that in peace-time that is absolutely inadmissible.
In these circumstances of political deadlock in which we find ourselves in this House, I believe that party government is on trial. I believe it will break and that democracy will immediately degenerate into some kind of one-party State, unless both parties agree to subscribe to certain basic principles. The first is the maintenance of the Constitution. The second, and it is the one to which I have given practically all my attention this evening, is the preservation of the right of personal freedom. Unless the maintenance of the Constitution and the right of personal freedom are genuinely accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Gentlemen on these benches, there is no basis for social progress; and there


will be a breakdown in the party system and a degeneration of democracy.
I believe most sincerely that there is an obligation on hon. Members in this House, when any item of party doctrine encroaches on these basic principles, to see that there should be political compromise by consent. There is the example of the Steel Bill. We believe in private enterprise and we should like to see one hundred per cent. private enterprise. Hon. Gentlemen opposite believe in public control. They have stuck to their guns one hundred per cent. But we on this side have offered to compromise with a Government board to see that the steel industry under private enterprise acts for the public interest. There has to be some give and take in these matters. I know that hon. Members opposite are saying that they believe in these things, but too often, it seems to me, the voice is the voice of Jacob but the hand is the band of Esau. It is the acts of the Government that matter and it is the acts of Socialism, both through nationalisation and through direct control that always encroach on the narrowing field of individual freedom.
Therefore I make this plea to the right hon. Gentleman; first, that there should be a standstill in nationalisation until we see how this experiment, with all its social implications, works. Second, that the Government should limit the Measures which it brings in to those that will command the highest degree of common consent. Thirdly and lastly, that the Government, for the benefit of the people, should undertake a voluntary abdication in the use of power.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Dryden Brook: I would like to relate what I have to say to that section of the Amendment which deals with control and public ownership and relate it to the industry in which I have spent many years of my working life, the wool textile industry. The hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he has said, except to say that all he had to put forward was a criticism of what he called the concentration of power and of control.
I would like to point out to hon. Members an industry which is now faced with

very difficult problems, just because controls were over hastily removed. In the wool textile industry, as in other industries which have had to face problems regarding raw materials—and this applies not merely to raw materials, but also to foodstuffs—what is it that the producers of raw materials and foodstuffs must have over a long period? The basic condition on which they exist is that they must have, over a long period, stable prices; a stable price which will give them, first, the cost of production which they have put into it and, second, a margin to cover their own profit and remuneration.
Anyone who engages in the production of raw materials wants to know that when he has put his energy into the production he will be able to get a price sufficient to cover those basic factors. If we turn to the consumers of raw materials or foodstuffs, what do they require over a long period? They, too, require stable prices. In my own industry, the period between the two wars is full of the stories of firms who went out of existence, not because they were badly organised, not because their technical equipment was bad, not because their managerial capacity was inefficient, but simply because they were caught in one of the maelstroms of ups and downs in prices which simply swamped them out of existence.
There are now in existence two attitudes of mind towards the problem of what will give the two people mostly concerned, the producer and the consumer, this stability. This is not a problem for theorists: it is a problem which the people in the industry recognise. I have vivid recollections of being on Bradford Wool Exchange between the two wars and hearing a conversation between a great manufacturer and a great wool merchant. The manufacturer expressed his longing to get back to the old days of stable prices, and the wool merchant turned and said, "Stable prices be blowed. I want them in and out, like that." These are conditions which are in conflict in an industry.
What is the conflict between the two sides—I will call them "ours" and "theirs." On the opposite side of the House they look for a solution to what they call the workings of the price mechanism which, clothed in a new name, is our old friend the law of supply and demand. I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to look at the history of the


wool textile industry and see what the law of supply and demand has done to the stability of that industry. I have had nearly 50 years' experience in the raw material side of the industry. I remember two wool controls in two world wars, and I remember what happened after both of them.
Between 1919 and 1920 the price of raw wool went up like a rocket; between 1920 and 1921 it came down like a stone. Wools which I bought at roughly 16d. to 20d. a lb. in 1919, made 60d. a lb. in 1920. In 1921, they went down again to 1s. a lb. Throughout the period between the two wars fluctuations of that kind, though perhaps not quite so pronounced, continued. It was mentioned last week that wool values are about nine times pre-war. In crossbred wool, which I know very well, what was selling at 1s. in 1939 has fetched 112d. a lb. within the last two months.
In the first week of August, in my own business, I made a sale of New Zealand wools at an average of 60d. a lb. In the September sales in London the same wools fetched 116d. a lb. In the first week of the sale they fetched 116d.; in the second week the price had dropped by 1s.; and now it has gone back to roughly what it was during the first week. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen realise what that means to a manufacturing concern which has all its capital wrapped up in machinery and buildings? Think of what it means to a small manufacturing concern which uses, say, 30,000 lb. of wool a week and which, if it is to keep on an even keel, must keep in stock roughly two to three months' supply of raw materials. A variation in the price of raw materials of, say, 1s. a lb., means roughly, £15,000 to that small concern. We must face that problem.
Many solutions have been offered. It is easy to offer solutions when one goes on to a propaganda platform, or when one is speaking to people who do not know the conditions. Before the last election a well-known man, speaking against bulk buying, said that we should have lots of buyers and that competition between buyers would bring prices down. That may sound very well on the wireless but, as a business man and a social student, I should describe a person who made a statement like that as either a knave or a fool. But I do not like to

describe the eminent gentleman who made that statement, who happens to be the present chairman of the Tory Party, by either of those names, because I do not believe that he is either a knave or a fool. However, it was he who said on the wireless that we should have plenty of buyers and that competition among buyers would bring prices down.
Neither is there any solution in the suggestion made last week by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) who, in an interjection when Government bulk buying was being discussed, said that it should not be done by the Government. The implication was that he was in favour of bulk buying if it was done by large-scale private industry. History proves, in relation to that kind of buying, that once there is concentration of buying in private hands, in a large block of capital, that group of capitalists will use its power to exploit not only the consumer but the producer. That has been proved over and over again.

Mr. Watkinson: I think the hon. Gentleman's point is that Government buying is really establishing a stable cost for the manufacturer. Before he finishes his remarks on this matter, could he explain how it was that in my industry the devaluation of the pound caused an overnight increase of 40 per cent. in the cost of our raw materials? That happened in many other industries as well.

Mr. Brook: I have heard the same charge made in the wool industry. It has been said that devaluation raised the price of wool, that it was responsible for the rapid increase in prices. The people who make that claim forget that the New Zealand and the Australian pound was devalued at the same time as our own.

Mr. Watkinson: I was not talking about wool.

Mr. Brook: So far as devaluation has had any influence on wool prices, it is only because devaluation succeeded in doing what the Government intended that it should do. It revived trade generally throughout the country and indeed throughout the world, because devaluation meant that the American industry also turned the corner at the same time as our own.
Let me come back to this problem. I well remember that in the 1920's friends of mine in New Zealand complained bitterly about the action of the Tooley Street butter buyers, who set about breaking the New Zealand farmers in an effort to bring down the price of butter. Wherever there is, in private industry, large-scale groups of buyers, there is inevitably, as a concomitant of that, an organisation started by the producers to protect their own interests.
If I might offer a suggestion for the solution of this problem, it is that over a long period of years we want stability of prices for the manufacturing industries. If the manufacturer comes to depend on judging fluctuations in the market for the sources of his profit rather than on his technical skill, his organisational capacity and managerial ability, then we have finished with those three qualifications in our manufacturing industry.
Therefore, I plead that over a period of years we should have some body which can give stability of prices. It must be a large-scale organisation. It will mean that in some years there may be losses on raw materials, but over a period of time—I suggest five years as a minimum and probably ten—I am convinced that the process would iron out the losses and balance the gains. The only body that can do that is the Government of the country. Experience in the wool textile industry in two world wars has shown us that the only way in which we can get stability is by Government organisation and control.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook), in his thoughful speech, said that what producers want most is a stable price at which they know they can sell their products. I can well believe that that is so, but to me it spells stagnation. As I am far more interested in the cause of the consumer than that of the producer, I would rather see keen competition that will bring prices down. The hon. Gentleman gave us a definition of the price mechanism. I offer him a different one. It is a position where what people wish to spend is what determines what it is profitable to produce. That is the sovereignty of the consumer.
The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), who spoke first in the Debate from the opposite side of the House, differs from me on most things, but we are, I think, in agreement on two things; first, on the brilliance and effectiveness of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), who opened the Debate, and. second, that it is quite clear that the Government consider that it is vitally necessary that they should have power greatly to extend controls. I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would say that the prevention of unemployment and of a further rise in the cost of living are two of the most important matters in the home field, and I quite agree with them. I assume that they think that the controls are necessary to achieve these two objectives. I think they would say that mass unemployment on the scale which we had before the war is a most fearful thing, of which the consequences will be quite incalculable, and I entirely agree with that.
There are two sorts of doctors, each of whom might fail in treating a patient. There is the doctor who tries quack remedies quite irrelevant to the disease, and I have not seen much sign of the relevance which controls have in maintaining full employment. Then there is the other sort of doctor, who fails because he prescribes treatment suitable enough for the patient if the illness had occurred 20 years earlier, when it was of quite a different nature. This seems to be just what the Government are doing in this connection.
It is well known by the economists today that there is no automatic mechanism which will ensure that savings are spent on capital investment. Decisions to save and decisions to invest are made by different people at different times, and it is necessary, we entirely admit, for the Government to step in and see that it is done correctly. Today, there is no problem of inadequate demand and no problem of how to expand the demand for capital goods; on the contrary, we know quite well how it is to be done, and how, if the export market fails, we can maintain employment by expanding demand at home. What we do not yet know is how to be sure of getting our raw materials. The problem today is no longer that of 20 years ago, but how a country, depleted of its resources and the recipient of a reckless financial policy for


five years, is to be sure of getting these raw materials without which full employment cannot possibly be maintained.
To come to the cost of living, unless there are controls in a time of scarcity, it is quite certain that extra spending will drive up prices, and if these prices are prevented from going up by controls a black market follows. We saw that in the case of Germany, and, beyond a point, if controls are exercised, the black market is inevitable; that will mean that the least deserving people get the most. If it is attempted to control prices in a scarcity market beyond that point, it can only be done, as I am sure the Minister will agree, by a vast extension of rationing. I ask him tonight whether he will say that the Government are prepared to exercise their controls and have a wholesale increase in rationing; if not, how will they prevent prices going up by controls?
More controls mean that labour and investment are attracted to those products which are not being controlled. It is only human nature to go where the work is the most profitable. Therefore, it always happens that the essentials are not being produced where they are controlled in price, and there is a diversion towards luxury and unnecessary things. How is that to be dealt with? Only by extreme authoritarian methods. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Government do not contemplate any direction of labour, and on this side of the House we shall be thankful to hear it, but I hope he will explain how, in the circumstances of growing scarcity which may come, the Government think they can exercise controls without using their powers of direction of labour.
If the Government choose to limit dividends, it means that present personal savings will fall further. There will be no venture capital to take on risk business, and on this issue I would like to quote the "Economist" which, on this theme of the statutory limitation of dividends, says:
That would destroy all possibility of an increase in personal savings. By making undistributed profits still more exclusively the one form of saving, it will finally stifle the supply of risk capital for new ventures and solidify investment into established firms and industries. Such an extra barrier to progressiveness and efficiency in the British economy must he avoided at all costs.

It is, indeed, strange how often the Socialist Government show themselves to be most unprogressive. On this side of the House, of course, we realise that some controls are necessary; in time of scarcity, there must be allocation of raw materials, but there is a very big difference between allocating rare raw materials and vastly extending rationing and interfering with the freedom of the people.
If I might put it in this way, I would say that, if there is an artificial shortage, as there is of houses after a devastating war, it is necessary to have some form of control; otherwise, the houses would rise in price far above the level at which they would eventually be stabilised, and controls prevent that. but that is a very different thing to using controls in the way which has been suggested by Government spokesmen today. It seems to me to be like driving a car with all the brakes on. One knows one can use the brakes in an emergency if one wishes to stop, and that is one thing, but it is quite another to put the throttle at 60 miles an hour and then drive entirely on the brakes. Controls may be good servants but they are very bad masters. and that is what they are becoming today.
It seems to me that there is a lunatic fringe on one side of the Government with regard to the use of controls. In the Socialist Government, there is another lunatic fringe which I might describe as the Crossman variety—and I warned the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), whom I am glad to see in his place, that I would refer to him, because he made the suggestion in his speech last week that there should be a vast extension of subsidies. Of course, while we have been accustomed to one of these two fringes, the disturbing feature about the Labour Party today is that the ground between the two fringes is so very narrow. The hon. Member, as I understood him, was advocating the extension of subsidies, including food and transport and clothing, but these subsidies were not to be restricted to those who needed them most, to old age pensioners and others with small fixed incomes. They were to be made all round, and that would enormously extend the demand for goods. At the same time there would have to be heavy taxation to try firstly to offset this demand. We should be in the position that there would be much greater demand


yet reduced supplies to meet it because of greater taxation.
The hon. Gentleman—I hope he will forgive my saying it—has a reputation for being rather volatile—perhaps a reputation not entirely confined to this side of the House. Sometimes he produces plans that seem remote in the distant future, and sometimes others which are a little out of date. On this occasion he has produced one about 20 years out of date. In 1931 there was a good deal to be said for encouraging greater expenditure so that there could be greater demand to get full employment. Then we wanted to encourage spending. Now what we have to do is to restrict spending and encourage production.
Inflation is a fearful menace. It is, I think, just about the most unjust form of taxation ever devised. It hits those hardest who can least bear it. It enormously diverts exports to the home market because of increased demands at home. It creates bottlenecks which discourage and distort production. Inflation may be suppressed for a time by controls, but a suppressed inflation may, in the long run, be more damaging than any other sort. High prices are only a symptom of inflation. They can be dealt with either by reducing demand through greater taxation or by reducing Government expenditure. Hon. Members opposite apparently think—certainly, the hon. Member for Coventry, East, thinks—it can be done by increasing taxation. I would refer him to the White Paper on the National Income. There he will see that those having an income between £250 and £1,000 gross have incomes which add up to £4,060 million. Those with incomes over £2,000 a year, which is about £1,000 a year after tax, have incomes totalling £460 million. Quite clearly, by increasing direct taxation there may be great discouragement to production, but there would be little increase in revenue.

Mr. Crossman: I was not suggesting increasing taxes on income, except in so far as unearned income, capital, and Death Duties were concerned. Therefore, the argument does not apply.

Mr. Spearman: The hon. Gentleman would substitute a capital levy. Let me prove the falsity of that. For example, take a man with a capital of £1 million,

and say that the capital levy was 25 per cent. On a capital of £1 million it would be fair to say that the gross income would be £50,000—that is, 5 per cent. If we reduce his capital by 25 per cent. he would have an income of £37,500. That 25 per cent. capital levy would mean a reduction in that man's income to £4,477 instead of £4,792. In other words, that man's income would be reduced by £315. The only thing relevant to this issue is, how far taxes will reduce spending. The reduced spending of income by that capital levy at 25 per cent. would be £300-odd on every £1 million of capital.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins), in the previous debate, made a great point of the distinction between the standard of living and rises in the cost of living, and I quite agree with him. I would say that the standard of living can be improved only by greater production. I think, perhaps, that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me in that. We cannot improve the standard of living by reductions in Government expenditure, but I do say that we can prevent further rises in the cost of living by reductions in Government expenditure. Indeed, it can only be done either by increased taxation—which the hon. Member himself seems very doubtful about—or by reductions in Government expenditure. The other way, which is surely far more admirable, is to do it by increasing supplies, and I suggest that that only can be done by giving more incentives to workers and industrialists, and by encouraging savings which can go to provide venture capital, and, above all, by increasing competition so as to reduce profit margins—through the competition of one firm with another.
Let me take the example of the Ford Motor Company. At one time that company paid bigger wages, I believe, than any other company in the world. It produced a cheaper motor car than any other company in the world. Yet its profits were the largest. If only hon. Members opposite would realise that there is nothing but good for the community in more profits so long as the profit margin is reasonable. They never sufficiently make that distinction. Is it possible under a Socialist Government for us to have this competition, which I believe is vital if production is to increase and the standard of living to be maintained? It


seems to me that with the growing rigidity of the Socialist doctrine, and the fact that more and more production is completely unfree and tied up in the nationalised industries, the prospects of greater competition are very remote.
I believe that when the next election comes an ever greater number of the people of this country will be saying, not "What can the Government give us?" but "Which Government will produce a state of affairs in which there is more competition, more incentives, greater savings, and thereby greater wealth that can be distributed?"

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I find some difficulty, in listening to the speeches of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, to determine what is their policy on controls. In speeches made both inside and outside the House we hear an extolling of the benefits of private enterprise. We then hear rather cautious suggestions that some sort of control should be exercised in times of scarcity. We hear, on the other hand, of the benefits of abolishing controls. Altogether it makes rather a hotchpotch, and it is difficult to understand what they mean. I think that they are really honest when they say they do not like any form of control at all; that, in accordance with the dictum of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), they prefer that the profit motive shall have full play—which is virtually what he said. If the profit motive is to have full play there is obviously no room for any type of control from any Government source. Nor would there be many organisations such as manufacturers' organisations which exist for the purpose of fixing prices. It appears that that sort of organisation, to some extent at any rate, has some blessing from hon. Members opposite.
I should have thought that this Debate would have devoted itself to that part of the Gracious Speech to which the Amendment is directed, and dealt with Government policy en controls which it believes to be necessary, and permanently necessary, for the maintenance of full employment. After all, full employment implies planning in such a way that works are kept busy, and that more materials flow to those places where they are needed to produce the type of goods necessary for the consuming public, and not necessarily having regard to the profit-making motive

and how much profit can be made. Very little has been said on that aspect of the problem, but it is obviously the key to the situation for those on this side of the House.
We have said that full employment has to be maintained because it is socially necessary and desirable that it should be. Hon. Members opposite have been at pains to show their sympathy with the trade union movement in its so-called enslavement to the nationalised industries. It comes ill from those who were very much concerned with and greeted with acclamation the Trades Disputes Act, 1927. It does not come very well from their lips, and I think their solicitude is perhaps a little overdone.
The Opposition also have this desire to return to the 19th century concept, when the individual employer was able to deal with the grievances of his men. How did he deal with them? Let hon. Members read the history of the 19th century if they want to know how he dealt with them. The workers would rather have the present system. It was made clear in an interjection earlier that where industries have been nationalised there has been an overwhelming desire on the part of the workers in those industries to continue on that basis. That has been established in all the nationalised industries.
In this 20th century it is time we got down to the facts of the situation and recognised that for the worker, the concept of the personal boss who actually controls the business has departed long since. He has been dealing with an impersonal body for a very long time in negotiations on wages and conditions. The fact that he deals with an impersonal body in the form of the Transport Commission or National Coal Board means that he is in circumstances very little different from those in which he was before, except that the organisation with which he is now dealing is concerned to see that the worker in that industry gets a square deal. Before, the method was to give the worker what could be afforded after looking after the profit-makers. That is something perhaps which the workers think is rather better today, despite the solicitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I think that they will still continue to believe in nationalisation as


the basic means of production of our necessities of life.
It seems also, in considering this question, that if it is accepted that there must be some form of control, which some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to accept, the point is: How is it to be exercised? Is it to be left to private enterprise to control itself? Clearly, that would be quite contrary to the principles of free enterprise, if one firm must be competing with another. What is the logical outcome of competition between one firm and another? Is it not that the less efficient are squeezed out and then the little more efficient are squeezed out, until we come to the point of monopoly? Is that not the ultimate end of capitalistic free enterprise?
That is why vast masses of people have turned to the Socialist commonwealth—I have no objection to using the phrase—as being an alternative means to capitalism, to provide them with the means of living, and also to maintain individual freedom. So we have no apologies to offer for the road that we have travelled, in spite of what the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) has said and I think that we are quite clear on this, that we do not regard the present amount of nationalisation as being the end of the story, and we shall not be satisfied until we obtain the type of organisation in which all men and women are free, in which all men and women are secure, and in which the benefits of production will be used for the whole of the people and not merely for the profit-making few.
Let us be quite clear that this is the way we are going. We may have to take it in stages. It may be that we cannot completely obtain this economic freedom for years, without some revolutionary way of progress. I do not indicate what the ultimate issue is, but I would say, out of experience of where capitalism has got us, that it is high time that we went along that road. People generally in this country believe in the road that we have travelled so far.
A lot has been said about the nationalised industries and increasing costs. I think that someone on the other side might have mentioned the electricity industry, which very shortly after nationalisation reduced prices in the most

expensive areas. Not much has been said from the other side about that. but that was a most important contribution by a nationalised industry. It does not follow either that that is the end of the story. What we are concerned with at the moment is that we have to do the job that private enterprise failed to do, and that was to provide sufficient capital equipment in the industry to produce the power we need. They have failed to do it for years because they have taken too much out in profit and too little has gone back for the purpose of capital investment. It is left to public investment today to do what private investment failed to do. We shall see the result.
The right hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) said that the only way to increase productivity was to increase the hours of labour. I wonder how much real experience of industry he has. It has been clearly established in America that the method of increasing productivity is to increase the power ratio of mechanism in relation to each human individual. They use about two-and-a-half times the amount of power per worker in America that is used in Great Britain, and it is generally established that the American worker works less hard physically to achieve a higher result. That seems to be an indictment of British capitalism, even if it happens to be a mark in favour of American capitalism. At least, it has been established that if we want to get increased production, we have to have more power and mechanisation.
Although Members opposite have a lot to say about nationalisation and controls, and would like to see steel returned to private enterprise, they do not appear to have any desire to see coal returned to private enterprise. The answer, as far as they are concerned, is that if the product is really necessary and vital to the national well-being, and if it cannot be produced by any other system than public ownership, then public ownership can have it. But if it is something that can be produced at a profit, then private enterprise must have it. We reject that view. We say that the problem is the co-ordination of those things.
Reference is made in the Amendment to road haulage. A good deal has been said about the withdrawal of original permits, but I thought it was envisaged in


the Act that permits were to be granted only for a limited period. It was never the intention that they should go on continuously. Here, again, it was a question of taking over an industry in such a way as to avoid dislocation. It is quite right and proper that the Road Haulage Executive should say, through the machinery of the group managers or anyone else, "Can you now carry the traffic you were set up to carry?" If the answer is "Yes," then, quite obviously, the original permits will be withdrawn.
I do not know if Members recollect that one of the greatest evils of road transport was the cut-price return load. It is vitally necessary that the road haulage industry should build up a rates structure under which goods can be carried satisfactorily and people will be able to know the cost of transport. Suppose that the Commission attempt to do this, bearing in mind that many of the people who were guilty of this practice are operating original permits. They will know precisely how much to undercut in order to obtain a return load. This is one of the vital and valid reasons why original permits must be withdrawn. They cannot function if the rate structure is to operate officially. The job of Parliament, in studying the actions of the British Transport Commission, is to see whether the Commission is functioning efficiently and whether the charges are reasonable.
It seems to me that, whether we like it or not, we have got into a state of civilisation in which we are now accustomed to some sort of controls. We must obviously have some form of controls. The smaller the world gets and the more reduced time and space become in regard to population, the more we infringe one on the other, the more will it be necessary to restrict to some extent the activities of the individual when he impinges on others. Whether in the commercial world or in individual relations, we shall have to suffer restrictions, but we want to suffer the minimum of restrictions consistent with our personal freedom and livelihood. That is what our Government policy is. There is no question of control for control's sake. What we are concerned about is to keep our people in employment, and to see that the fruits of industry are fairly distributed in order that we may make our contribution towards a better and a happier world.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Any one who has the task of winding up a great Parliamentary debate or a series of debates is concerned with an elementary but fundamental difficulty. From time to time, especially upon ceremonial occasions, we pride ourselves on being representative of a system of Government by discussion. But if we are frank we must admit that there are very few occasions which any of us can remember when the discussion has influenced votes. In the 18th century before regular parties had taken solid shape, the outcome of a debate was often uncertain, and even in the 19th century, when the party system in Parliament was beginning to function, it was not altogether set into a rigid mould.
Even in the period between the two wars, I can well recall a considerable number of Members in all quarters of the House who could be relied upon to introduce individual and sometimes original notes, and who were not unwilling to back their argument by action—sometimes positive in the Lobby and sometimes in the negative protest of abstention. Indeed, I seem to remember—as the years go on one's memory gets weaker—a period when I had not so much respect for the authority of the Whips, nor was I inspired by the wisdom of Front Benches which I have since learned.
Somehow in this Parliament and in recent Parliaments even this degree of fluidity seems to have gone and in the present condition of equipoise, for the purposes of influencing a Division, a doctor may be more important than an orator. I have seen it suggested somewhere in the Press that in these debates we should, on principles which would have appealed to the White Queen, start by taking the vote, so that those of us who are interested in the subject could stay and continue the discussion afterwards. I think that reform is well worthy of consideration.
Nevertheless, while independence has tended to disappear from Parliament, there is a growing number of electors outside who own no party allegiance. By a strange paradox, while we ourselves have been forced into a more rigid mould, we are yet the creatures of just those independent men and women, because it is these people and the influence they have which decides the result of the elections,


the fate of politicians, and the fortunes of Governments and parties. We are anchored to our political destiny by the floating vote. I shall try, therefore, to recommend this Motion to the House with what objectivity and fairness I can command.
Ministers have now held office for a period of five years. They have held both office and power. I do not know whether they still regard themselves as enjoying both; or shall we have the canting phrase again, so familiar to us all, "In office and not in power"? Is that perhaps the excuse which they will give their supporters for the halt, if not the retreat, on the road to the Socialist State. In spite of the enthusiasm of the last speaker and in spite of the tremendous dishes which were served up to us in the last Parliament, this is a very Lenten fare indeed—salmon and white fish. One great claim Ministers may make: during these five years there has been full employment in Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am making a good start. I may get a vote or two on that from those benches.
Perhaps it would be right to add that this happy situation is at least partly due to the magnitude of the demand after the greatest war in history; to the large-scale unrequited exports which we have to send out of the country without any return; to the high state of business activity in North America—in capitalist North America; and to a fact which is almost forgotten, the shrinking of the labour force by the raising of the school leaving age and by the increased numbers in the Armed Forces. Finally, if it is not indecent to mention it, to judge by the sensitiveness which it reveals, it is due to the vast scale of Canadian and American aid.
I understand from something which the Home Secretary said in an earlier part of the Debate that there is no more need for Marshall Aid. Is that an expression of opinion, or is it a declaration of Government policy? That is really a very grave question. It struck me as a very queer way to handle these great matters, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies will say which it was. It cannot be left as a kind of Obiter dictum coming from the Home Secretary.
In spite of full employment, the nation, as our Amendment suggests, is confronted

by grave financial and economic problems. I know that Ministers are fond of representing their tenure of power during these post-war years as one of steady and orderly advance upon the road of economic recovery after all the trials and difficulties of the war. This journey is regarded as a pilgrimage, which has followed a clear and consistent course with foresight, calculation and true Socialist planning. That is the claim. Let us examine the reality. In the first flush of a rather unexpected victory in 1945, Ministers naturally had rather a rush of blood to the head. Those were the "Red Flag" days. I am rather disappointed that apparently the musical phase is over —or is it perhaps that those revolutionary hymns are regarded as suitable only for the atmosphere of the House of Lords?
The symbol of that period was of course, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who is to reply to the Debate. He fairly ran through the money in the best style. Those were the days when he had a "song in his heart," and it was always easy to hear the song because he has always worn his heart upon his sleeve. The early Daltonian era had an almost two-year run, and then came the crash. In the summer of 1947, having spent the American loan, we were driven to default upon the conditions on which we borrowed it. The Lord President of the Council came down to the House—I remember it well—pale, anxious and harassed, and asked for powers—powers to do something: nobody, including himself, seemed to know quite what. Whether he was really anxious about the convertibility crisis or whether he just thought it was an opportunity of grabbing a little more power, I do not know. If it was the latter, it was a very good act.
At any rate, the Nation staggered through this critical period and passed, a little dazed, into the second Daltonian period. This was brought to a sudden and dramatic end, not by design, but by a strange and most unhappy caprice of fortune. It was succeeded by the beginning of the Cripps era. After the warm, almost tropical, luxuriance of the former dispensation came, by one of those unexplained and mysterious changes in which nature delights, the new Ice Age, with arctic austerity, the wage freeze and all that. Our people submitted to this


drastic treatment with their usual fortitude. They even put up with a capital levy—once for all, never to be repeated—unless, of course, Socialist promises are to be nothing better than the Kaiser's "scrap of paper."
But even this complete reversal of policy led to another sudden and dramatic crisis. In September of last year the pound sterling was reduced to a little less than one-third of its international value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two-thirds."] I should have said a little less than two-thirds it was reduced by a little more than one-third.

Mr. William Ross: A speech is all the better for exaggeration.

Mr. Macmillan: The Government, which had previously denounced as almost treasonable any suggestion that such a course might become necessary, suddenly turned round and hailed their serious defeat as a major victory. There has been nothing like it since some of Napoleon's later bulletins. Of course, there were one or two "slip-ups"; there are apt to be in a moment of confusion. Some Ministers represented devaluation as a defeat at the very time that others were hailing it as a victory. Some claimed it as a miracle of planning; others excused it as an unexpected stroke of fate. I do not see the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, but he will remember his deep and natural emotion on that occasion.
After Ministers had recovered from the shock, we were told that the loss of 40 per cent. in the buying power of the pound could not result in a rise of more than 1 per cent. in the cost of living. What was meant, of course, was that in view of all the good stocks at the command of the Government and manufacturers, with any luck the rise in the cost of living would not become seriously felt until the General Election was safely past. That is why the most astute politicians in the Cabinet, like the Minister of Health, wanted the General Election in November last year, and that is why he wants it now, before things get still worse.
Of course, it is true that our balance of payments position has vastly improved. In addition to the cuts in dollar imports by the sterling area, far the largest contribution to this has been the sale of raw materials. Now, with stockpiling and re-

armament, the proceeds of these sales are becoming increasingly great. Indeed, even before this later development, the dollar earnings of Malaya equalled the entire dollar exports from the United Kingdom. There is, of course, a certain irony in this which must make the gods chuckle. For tin and rubber are the fruits of private enterprise of a particularly speculative kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Look at the price of them."] Wild rubber was first brought by a British scientist from Brazil, and by his efforts and by the backing of many merchant adventurers, the wild plants were successfully tamed and, after long years of trial and much investment of capital——

Mr. F. Longden: Cheap labour.

Mr. Macmillan: —success was obtained. Much the same, over centuries, was true of tin. In both cases the experiments could not have been made within what is now the precious sterling area, without that very Imperialism in the Far East of which some hon. Members opposite are so ashamed that they hang their heads. Yet today, by a delicious paradox, it is by a combination of capitalist enterprise and Colonial expansion that the barque of British Socialism is kept precariously afloat.
Throughout all this period the mood of Ministers was continually changing. One day we were rounding recovery corner with the Lord President but, just as we were getting into the straight, we were faced with a situation in which, to use the former Chancellor's words, "civilisation itself might fade and wither away." Quite strong words, even for these days. It is these perilous and haphazard wanderings that Ministers with extraordinary presumption now represent as a carefully planned course. Yet the truth is just the opposite. I could not sum it up better than in a phrase of the former Chancellor:
We have tried ever since the war to overcome our difficulties by a series of expedients which led to a series of crises as each expedient became exhausted.
Throughout all this confusion one thing, and one thing only, has carried them along—the splendid and devoted patriotism, fortitude and good humour of the British people. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are many dangers ahead. Yet at this time, with the vast additional


burden of rearmament, when we have to face the grim facts of the division of the world into two armed camps, when we have to face a new admitted gap in our defensive system which can only be filled at this late hour by truly prodigious efforts; at this time, instead of concentrating upon the realities of the situation, the Gracious Speech offers us nothing except the driest and most unappetising nutrient.
 The hungry sheep look up and are not fed.
What are the Government's remedies for all these ills? What do the Government propose? What is their diagnosis? We are to have a Bill to make permanent the present emergency powers. That is what we are discussing today. Not, as the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) seemed to think, whether they are good things or not, but whether they should be permanent or not. What is the reason for this Measure? Is it because the Government have such insufficient powers that they dare not face the future? Is it because there are not enough controls? There is a shortage of quite a lot of things, but is that the great shortage? Is it because they want some new and different powers? They have all these powers except the direction of labour.
Is it, then, the purpose to restore the direction of labour in peace-time? So far, I have only heard in this House what the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), said, and I did not find it very encouraging. I read what the Lord Chancellor said in another place. It was certainly very equivocal. He said that this power should be in a separate Bill, but he did not say whether it will be in a separate Bill. There is a great difference between "should" and "will" —one has only to think of the marriage service. I should like a clear answer: is it the Government's intention, whether by this Measure or by a separate Measure —that is the point—to take power to direct labour in peace-time? We should like to know, and so will the electors.
Meanwhile, I think I know what is the purpose of the Lord President in all this. I know something about his methods. After all, I was once his Parliamentary Secretary, and being that is quite an education. I am not persuaded that he is

really trying to fortify his defence against the assault of some new economic peril; he is not strengthening his armour —not at all, he is trailing his coat. He is laying a nice little trap, into which, he hopes, the traditionally stupid party will be so obliging as to stumble.
It is not because he cannot face the economic blizzard with his temporary overcoat that he wants these powers to be permanent. After all, he has this very satisfactory garment until the end of 1951 —even he cannot believe that the Government will last as long as that—and the Festival of Britain will be well over. Nor is he producing the Bill merely out of a passion for tidiness. His worst enemies could not accuse him of having a pedantically tidy mind. He is introducing this Bill in his capacity as one of the greatest party managers, in the Old world or the New. He knows he cannot face the people on housing—the record is too bad. He cannot face them on the rising cost of living. He cannot face them on the issue of Government expenditure and the consequent high and oppressive taxation.
The Lord President has lost the power of manoeuvre which the Socialist had in the old days. I remember it well. When I first got into the House, they were the party which never had power or responsibility, and therefore they could attack everybody who had preceded them, Conservative or Liberal alike. A very bad thing was always the fault of the system," but now they are "the system." They were always blaming the past, but since 1945 they are the past. It is no use making any more promises. tawdry or otherwise.
What, then, is the present Lord President to do? Why, introduce a Bill to make permanent controls, confuse the issue as much as possible between the powers of the Executive and the powers of Parliament, mix up together the duties of broad direction, which are inherent in any conception of Government, and all the pettifogging and tortuous complications of inflated Bumbledom, and then put in a phrase about full employment. Then, if any Conservative or Liberal makes the mildest protest, this will be the party line: "Tories and Liberals are for anarchy, Labour stands for order. Tories and Liberals stand for economic chaos, Labour stands for planning."
I can hear the speeches already. The articles are all prepared, I should think, and the pamphlets all printed. No more trouble from the constituents who stand in the housing queue and have waited so long; no more talk about the cost of living; no more grumbling at the terrible taxes. Here is the election cry: "Labour stands for order, Tories stand for anarchy. We will switch off from the Socialist State, which nobody seems to want. We will call it the planned society. That will fetch them, and if only the party opposite will walk into the trap, why," says the Lord President, "we just pull the string and, boys, it will be a fair cop." That is the Lord President's plan, I recognise the authorship at once, I know his style.
But really the problem is not as simple as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. It is the central problem of the second half of this century, and on its solution depends, perhaps, the survival of what we call Western civilisation, for it is the problem of combining freedom and order. In any society, even the most primitive, there must be vested in whatever may be the executive authority, large executive powers. In a modern society where the complexity and independence of financial and economic problems is so great, that authority must be wide and flexible and. even in the days when laissez faire was at its peak and was as readily swallowed by the intelligentsia of those days as Socialism is swallowed today, even in those Victorian days, great powers of direction and economy were in the hands of the central Government. The machinery was different. Financial direction through Budget and the bank rate were the normal instruments of control. But I do not think the party opposite will accuse the Tory Party of being the traditional supporters of laissez faire in its extreme form. It would not even be fair to accuse the Liberal Party of that. It was killed in my lifetime by Lloyd George.
I readily admit that in the early 19th century the rights of property and of the individual were put too high and the responsibilities too low, but now the wheel has gone full circle and I defy anyone to deny that it is not individual indiscipline but the centralising power of the State which is the danger to freedom. It is our task to find a true balance between the rights and responsibilities of the indi-

vidual; between what he owes to himself and his family, what he owes to others and to what it is now fashionable to call the State—although I prefer the words I learned as a child, "our duty to our neighbour."
In a modern society, of course, the Government has a huge rôle to play. It is armed with the traditional instruments of budgetary and monetary policy and has in its hands two powerful weapons which it may have to retain. These are exchange control and control of capital issues. With these powers, which are very large, a wise Executive can steer the broad development of the economy in accordance with its policy. But these controls have in addition the advantage of being somewhat remote and anonymous and generally do not press hardly on the normal daily experience of the ordinary citizen. They have nothing in common with the kind of irritating interventions of officialdom and bureaucracy by which the citizen is continually harassed and attacked. We all have our favourite examples. I have a full sheaf, but I shall spare the House its recital, and every hon. Member knows what I mean.
In addition to these financial powers in the hands of the Executive, there will be others necessary, perhaps, in all circumstances and certainly in present circumstances. For example, the rationing of materials in short supply and general guidance of import and export policy. But there are many most harassing and tyrannical powers, like that of direction of labour, which are not justified in peacetime nor will they be tolerated by a free people, or a people determined to remain free.
Just because certain powers are necessary, just for this very reason, any Executive which has a due regard for democracy and freedom should itself be only the more anxious to be charged with those powers with the full support and under effective control—and by that I mean really effective control—and by the periodic review of a free Parliament. Of course, I fully admit that the Government have had many powers which they have not used. It is arguable that under Regulation 55 they might have seized the coal industry, gas, electricity and steel without all the trouble of Parliamentary Bills and long and wearisome debates. I think that those powers are there but they have not done


that. It is also true that the very dangerous and revolutionary doctrines which even so respectable a figure as the Prime Minister put forward only a few years before the war, the commissars and all that—we all know the quotation—even these have been put away, at least temporarily, into some cupboard of Transport House, along with the writings of The Secretary of State for War, the speeches of the Minister of Defence and many other skeletons.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What about the right hon. Gentleman's own writings?

Mr. Macmillan: Oh, mine are very respectable. I have no doubt that these powers which existed have not been used to the extent that they might have been, but I know what these Ministers have said in the past and to what they may perhaps revert. Even if these Ministers are what we might call reformed drunkards for powers, the craving is always there, and in these cases it is wiser to keep them out of temptation. If I might describe the difference between the periodic and the permanent, I would say that the Lord President of the Council would like Parliament to put the bottle permanently on the mantelpiece, so that, like Mrs. Gamp, he could put his lips to it when he was so "dispoged." For my part, I think it is better to keep it under lock and key and for Parliament to have the key.
I have said that in a modern society no Government can stand aside from the great economic policies of the day; of course not. I should, in passing, like to comment for a moment on the sad tendency towards the debasement of the currency of words. It causes much confusion of thought. Take the word propaganda:
De propaganda fide.
What an elevated ideal. It meant the spread of the Christian gospel among heretics and infidels. Now it is degraded so as to be almost synonymous with falsehood and partisanship. Or take charity, in the Pauline sense. It has sunk from its first meaning to suggest only the giving of public or private alms.
So with the word planning. It had quite a respectable start. It meant the creation of modern and effective

machinery by which high national policies might be carried to fruition, for a plan is merely the instrument for carrying out a policy. We have had a glut of plans but we have had a sad dearth of policies. It was of course inherent in this idea that policies would be devised, on selected and vital national interests, by which we might become, as far as possible, masters of our fate instead of the victims of blind chance. It was also part of this conception that planning should be carried out not by the arbitrary intervention of a bureaucracy but by a real partnership between the State and industry, each in its own sphere playing its appropriate rôle. That is as far removed as can be from the so-called Socialist planning of which we have had such tragic experience.
In these complex affairs the Government have, as I have said, a great rôle to play, but in my view their place is at the centre, not at the circumference. Their rôle is strategic and not tactical. The great commander in the field—and it has been my good fortune to live in close association with some of the greatest—must plan the broad outline of the campaign or the battle, but he must not interfere with its tactical operation. He must command the Army but he must not try to command a division or a brigade, still less a battalion. Sometimes the temptation to do so is very great, but if he yields to it he is lost; and so it is with the Government.
It is this tactical interference which has proved the fatal canker in the nationalisation schemes. Ministers might well have asked this Parliament to devote some attention to the reform and improvement of the industries and services already nationalised. For it is clear, and I think everyone admits that there is here an immense and urgent task. It is necessary for national efficiency. It is necessary in order to improve the morale of the management and men employed. It is necessary to improve the service to the customer, that is to the public as a whole.
Instead, at a most critical moment of our national affairs when parties and public opinion are so nicely balanced, Ministers have decided to press on with the nationalisation of iron and steel. What for? To increase exports? To help rearmament? To raise steel production? To increase industrial harmony in the industry?


[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No impartial man can say that. In addition they are pressing on the road transport monopoly by the most ruthless and relentless methods. The road hauliers are being driven out of business on the most onerous terms and with derisory compensation. And why? To serve the public? Oh, no! To protect the interests of the State monopoly.
And now we are to have a further measure of nationalisation, it is true not a very large affair, in sugar. It does not seem to be very popular, even with some of the Government supporters. Indeed, I am not sure whether it is really nothing more than a tactical advance to cover a general strategic retreat upon the whole nationalisation front. It is not clear yet whether the new Bill is an advance guard or a rear guard, or whether it is the thin end of the wedge. Or is it perhaps that the Lord President has been squared by "Mr. Cube"? In any case this and the other Measures which are foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech bear no relation to the problems of the day. They are pure political manœuvering. They are the last struggle of a discredited and dying Government, and as such I believe they will earn the contempt of thinking people and of those moderate and vigilant voters whose support may often be won by bold measures, but never by petty or partisan devices. For those compelling reasons I commend this Amendment to the House and to the nation.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): The Amendment in support of which the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has just spoken, is something of a mixed grill, and I will do my best, in half an hour, to do justice to this dish. It was commended to us in a very notable speech by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). I venture, party politics entirely apart, to congratulate him on that speech, and to congratulate the Front Opposition Bench on a much needed revivification. I am glad that the Opposition are now following, after some delay, the practice of His Majesty's Government, in beginning to lower the average age of the denizens of the Front Bench.
I hope that the hon. Member for Monmouth is not only enjoying acting rank

but that he will be allowed to stay on the Front Bench and to continue to make speeches from that Box on future occasions. None the less, I must add that I think that, though a change in the bowling brightens the game, he bowled a lot of wides and a few no-balls and, charming though the speech was—full of energy, fluency and self-confidence—all admirable qualities, much of it was far from the Amendment before the House.
I shall talk about the Amendment. That may be surprising to some of the earlier speakers. First, with regard to road transport, which the hon. Gentlemen and others referred to, much is being made of the fact that some 5,000 permits—a relatively small number of the total of the permits granted to private road hauliers—are being terminated next February, as was always perfectly clear might be the case when the permits were originally granted.
There is no ground here for surprise at what we have done, or for recrimination. Those concerned will be entitled, in the first place, to continue to ply within a 25 mile radius of their place of business. In the second place, in so far as they are B licence owners, carrying, in part, their own goods and, in part only, plying for hire and reward, they will be entitled, outside the 25 miles radius, still to carry their own goods.
If they are dissatisfied with the new situation, they will be entitled to require the Transport Commission to take them over and compensate them on a basis of the valuation of their assets, plus goodwill, plus any claim they may put in for severance. In default of agreement they can go to a high powered Arbitration Tribunal which, I am sure, will do justice.
It must not be forgotten that this particular operation is part of the provision the Transport Act passed by the last Parliament, which intended to bring about an integral and efficient service of road and rail transport for the country as a whole. I say that at present the obstacle in the way of that being done is that there are too many vehicles on the roads. Many of them are travelling about only half-loaded. They are using petrol, they are wearing out road surfaces, they are increasing the number of road accidents, and they are uneconomic. It is part of our purpose to get rid of this redundancy and to provide


an efficient transport system. I am confident that in the next few years the practical working of our new scheme will bring that about.
Let me turn from road transport to another matter referred to in the Amendment—steel. I find it rather surprising that the Opposition should keep nattering on about steel. After all, they have been beaten twice on this in this Parliament.

Mr. Churchill: Not in the country.

Mr. Dalton: When the Opposition, for the first time, win a by-election anywhere, and most of all in a steel centre, then I will give it to the right hon. Gentleman.
Meanwhile, the Iron and Steel Act is on the Statute Book and the Government will carry out the law. Moreover, I am informed that, apart from one or two of the mandarins of Steel House, who still keep up the battle—many of whom have very little knowledge of steel making as practical men—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We could go through them and their qualifications: here an accountant, there a lawyer and somewhere else an ex-university lecturer in philosophy. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I was hoping the Opposition would respond to that. What happens to ex-university lecturers? We have no monopoly of their services; but we pick the best. Of these gentlemen of Steel House, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said, very picturesquely, that many of them know less about making steel than his granny, and I, therefore, leave them aside, at this stage of the proceedings, as no longer weighing heavily in the balance of political reality.
I am very glad to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply that the practical men in charge of steel undertakings in this country—the managers, and a considerable number of directors—accept the position and are quite prepared, as good patriots, to continue to maintain the splendid output records which the industry is at present achieving.

Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman appear surprised that they have not attempted to sabotage the output of steel, on which so much depends?

Mr. Dalton: I should have been both ashamed and surprised if the men in

charge of these plants had yielded to the blandishments of the Opposition.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, throughout the last Parliament and in this one, we have done our utmost to keep up production in this country.

Mr. Dalton: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should try to make a debating point out of this. What I have said, and I say it again, is that I am very proud to find, what I expected to find, that steel output is being magnificently sustained and increased by those who do the practical work of the steel industry, though without any particular encouragement from those who, while talking about the need for national unity, have refused to accept the decision of Parliament in a Bill which was carried into law in the last Parliament, and on an issue on which they have twice been defeated in this one.
This was the issue on which the Opposition challenged the Government in the debate on the King's Speech last year. They were beaten. They challenged us again on 10th September, and we brought up all our sick and wounded and beat them again. We shall see what will happen tonight. So much for steel. We are going on with the nationalisation programme. We are going forward with no fear or doubt or shadow of turning, and the more this is debated the more repetitive the Debate will become, as there is really nothing new to add to it.
Now I wish to turn to controls, about which the right hon. Gentleman and others had much to say. This Amendment protests against making permanent the wartime powers of control by regulations already enjoyed by the Government. We do intend to make certain of the powers permanent. The Gracious Speech so declares, and, in due course, a Bill with that object will be presented. I shall not be expected, I am sure, to expound in detail, well in advance of its introduction perhaps, this Bill. But I can say one ar two positive things about it, and one or two negative things, and I will do so in response to questions asked by hon. Members.
First, direction of labour. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor made the position quite clear, I thought—but, if not, I will endeavour to make it clearer still


—when speaking quite recently in another place: that is the right description. He made it quite clear, I thought, that the Bill that we are intending to introduce would not provide for the direction of labour. It will not contain any provision for the direction of labour. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that we might have it in mind, perhaps, to introduce some other Bill which would contain such a provision.

Mr. H. Macmillan: That is what the Lord Chancellor said.

Mr. Dalton: No, he did not say that. What he said was, that if we had need to introduce it, we should, of course, come to ask for it as a special Measure. He spoke with the full authority of the Cabinet, and so I do, and our statements in no way are contradictory. What I say is that the Bill we shall introduce will not contain any provision for the direction of labour. We do not have it in mind to introduce a Bill providing for the direction of labour. But if there occurred some misadventure—we hope there will not—but if we were again in some very tense situation, such as that in which the right hon. Gentleman and some of us on this side have been associated, we should, of course, consider it again, because the life of the country would be at stake. Of course we should. But we have no intention of introducing, in this Bill or in any other Bill, a provision providing for the direction of labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "In peace time?"] Certainly. If we got into another war, everything would be changed.

Mr. Macmillan: This is a very important point, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree. He says, "If we got into a tense situation." He says, "Of course, we shall not introduce such a Bill with such powers." He seems to forget that the Government have maintained and held such powers for a whole five years, up to the last few months.

Mr. Dalton: A few months ago we dispensed with them, to the great chagrin of the Opposition, who were looking forward to a Debate which was, unfortunately for them, disposed of by the fact that a few days before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour dispensed with those powers. Anyhow, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is now clear as

to the intentions of the Government. I have tried to make them pellucidly clear.
Now I wish to say a few words about human freedom. The direction of labour is one form of the infringement of human freedom. I wish to remind the House and the country that in the last five years this Government have done more for civil liberties than all the Tory and Liberal Administrations for a long time past. It was under the present Government, in the last Parliament, that we abolished all the old barriers that used to protect the Crown—that is to say, in modern terms, the Executive, Ministers, Departments of State, and so on—from being sued by private citizens. Any private citizen may now sue any Department of State. That is a great advance in civil liberty, and it was introduced and carried through by His Majesty's present Advisers.
Further, not only have we given the empty right to go to law—it is an empty right for the great majority of poor men—but, in addition to that, we have made the right a reality by the Legal Aid Act which we have passed. We have given the right to the poorest person to get good legal advice at the public expense, and thereby to make effective use of the rights given to him. All this is quite new law and a great extension of civil liberty. Tory Governments always forgot about the need for this in the old days.
Moreover, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is misleading to discuss civil liberty upon a purely juristic plane: economic considerations also enter into this matter, and nothing has done more to extend the freedom of the ordinary worker than the continuance of full employment. Full employment gives the worker freedom to choose his job; it gives him freedom to change his occupation; and it gives him power, in the last resort, to sack the boss. In these days, the worker no longer has to fear political or industrial victimisation, because, if an employer thus acts towards him, it is not too difficult for him to find another employer who will be glad to engage him. The list of unfilled vacancies to be seen at every employment exchange is one of the clearest symbols of this great new freedom which the workers have under full employment. Therefore, in any general discussion about freedom, I hope that the Opposition will get down to


these realities and not deal with remote generalisations.
The issue between us with regard to these powers is whether there should be a permanent statute or whether we should have to rely upon a process of annual renewal. So far, nothing has been said by spokesmen on the other side of the House, who have criticised our proposals, about the other place and the part that it plays in these arrangements. The principal and most fundamental objection, in my view, to the process of the annual renewal of these powers, as distinct from the making of a permanent statute, is that annual renewal requires the annual consent of the other place. It is not enough for this House—it was not enough only a week or two ago—to pass an annual renewal. It also has to be validated at the other end of the passage, and to that we have the strongest constitutional objection. It is right for the life of a Government to be determined, and for great decisions of policy to be determined, in this House—this representative House.
In the last Parliament we did not clip the wings of the other House in order to put back into its claws an annual veto upon this most essential part of our economic arrangements. From a democratic and parliamentary point of view, it is intolerable that we should be dependent upon the consent of unrepresentative persons in matters of this kind, and that is one of the strongest arguments for having a permanent measure dealing with these questions.
Our object in drawing up this Bill which will be introduced later, excluding, as I have said, the direction of labour, will be to make permanent all those controls which are necessary for the secure establishment of our industrial prosperity, and for social justice in the Welfare State. This will be the test. Everything that is necessary for these objects we shall retain. What is not necessary we shall not retain, and the details will be filled out later.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman will be the judge.

Mr. Dalton: I thought the right hon. Member for Bromley sagged a bit towards the end of his speech. I thought he was going to criticise much more severely the requirement of permanent legislation for war-time powers,

but towards the end of his speech he seemed to concede the need—no doubt he will correct me if I misunderstood him —for the permanent retention of a number of these powers, upon which we should be very glad to agree with him, if that is his view. Let me give him an example to see whether I rightly understood him. For example, price control, which is entirely dependent upon these regulations. Our view is that we need powers of price control as a permanent part of our legislative arrangements. I think he agrees.

Mr. Macmillan: What I said was that there were certain powers, budgetary and monetary powers and others of that kind, and others that might be necessary in certain circumstances. I intended to say, and I am sure that I did say, that they should be subject to Parliamentary control, and that that Parliamentary control should be real and effective, subject to periodic review and not permanent.

Mr. Dalton: That is practically giving me my case.

Mr. Macmillan: I said subject to periodic review and not permanent.

Mr. Dalton: Very well. The right hon. Gentleman has one leg on each side of the stile. We consider that they should be permanent until it seems right to Parliament to repeal them. That is our view. Of course, they should be subject to Parliamentary review, and that will be provided for in the Bill. An undertaking to that effect is given—review by this House, but not necessarily by other persons at the other end of the passage.
We consider that we must have permanent powers of price control—I am anxious to answer some of the positive questions that were put to me—in a statute, so that we can prevent the ravages of profiteering and diminish the risk of inflation. In the second place, we must have power to ration both the necessities of life, and, if need be, materials. I think that the right hon. Gentleman conceded that.
Further, we must have permanent powers of building licencing. There was quite a debate about that at the Tory Conference at Blackpool, and some of the speakers have been writing to the Press explaining that they were misreported.
I have not time to go into all that now, but our view is that we should have permanent power of building licencing, so that it is possible to control both the nature and location of building and, therefore, the use made of these very scarce and necessary things, building labour and building materials.
We should have power over export and import trade in the interests of our balance of overseas trade, and, finally— and here I think the right hon. Gentleman did agree, and I was surprised at it, but delighted—we must keep our exchange control and our control of new capital issues. I think that he agreed on that [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that he did. Both the Exchange Control Act and the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act are measures for which I was responsible, and looking a few years ahead I did make them both permanent, and I am very glad that I did. Permanent they are now and so will remain until we get an ill-advised Government that chooses to alter them. There will be no need for exchange control or new capital issues to be dealt with in this Bill. I have taken care of that beforehand.
So far as other matters are concerned. I think it would be reasonable if we could have further argument on the Bill, but I say this. It would really be very doctrinaire for hon. Members on the other side of the House, particularly in view of the very encouraging details that I have given, to vote against this Bill in advance of it being presented. They may do it if they like. It may be that there are no persons more doctrinaire in this House, and no section more committed in advance of an actual situation to abstract and somewhat unrealistic views than some of those who now occupy the benches opposite. I say that if they intend to vote for the Amendment, giving a doctrinaire vote well in advance of any necessary knowledge that might guide it.

The Liberal Party is not heavily represented. I was going to appeal to them on behalf of the old Radical tradition, but there are only three of them here. But I will say that I think Lloyd George would have thought, in these conditions, that it was very necessary that the general public should be safeguarded against small sections of society, against whom he so powerfully inveighed, by these protections. The Bill on permanent economic controls, which we shall introduce, will be subject to full democratic discussion in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it will. I am anxious to reassure those who breed nightmares in their souls. There will be full discussion.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: No guillotine?

Mr. Dalton: Many of the points which have been thought important are Committee points, and they can be discussed when the time comes.
Provided that the Government are satisfied that the Bill effectively maintains the national interests which I have indicated—the essential public interests —there is, of course, plenty of scope for amendment and discussion. But, those who vote tonight for this Amendment will be voting for retaining the annual renewal, as distinct from the permanent statutory renewal, and they are, therefore, voting to enable another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to have the last word as to whether in this country we should still have full employment, whether we should still have fair shares, and whether we should still be able to balance, as we are doing now, our overseas trade account. If that is the kind of issue on which it is thought the electors would like to pronounce, we shall be delighted that they should be consulted.
Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes. 289; Noes, 299.

Division No. 3.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W T
Baxter, A B.
Bossom, A. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Beamish, Mai T v [...]
Bowen, R


Amery, J (Preston, N.)
Bell R M
Bower, N.


Amory, D Heathcoat (Tiverton[...])
Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan


Ashton, H (Chelmsford)
Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Braine, B.


Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn[...] W.)
Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool Toxteth)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comd[...] J. G


Astor, Hon. M
Birch, Nigel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W


Baker, P.
Bishop, F. P.
Brooke, H. (Hampstead)


Baldock, J M
Black, C. W.
Browne, J N. (Govan)


Baldwin, A. E.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Banks, Col. C
Boothby, R.
Bullock, Capt. M.




Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pickthorn, K.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitman, I. J


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Powell, J. Enoch


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prescott, Stanley


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Price, H. A (Lewisham, W.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. H. (Scotstoun)
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Hyde, H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Redmayne, M.


Clyde, J. L.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Remnant, Hon. P


Colegate, A.
Jennings, R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Kaberry, D.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Keeling, E. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, H. W (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Ropner, Col L.


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, R. S.


Crouch, R. F.
Langford-Holt, J.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crowder, F P. (Ruislip—Northwood)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cundiff, F. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A M
Scott, Donald


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, Martin
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Llewellyn, D.
Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)


de Chair, S.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)


De la Bère, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. McN.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Soames, Capt. C


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Longden, G. J. M. (Harts. S.W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Donner, P. W.
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Lucas, Major Sir J (Portsmouth, S.)
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Stevens, G. P.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Steward, W A. (Woolwich, W.)


Dunglass, Lord
McAdden, S. J.
Stewart, J, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duthie W. S.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Eccles, D. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Erroll, F. J.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Fisher, Nigel
McKibbin, A.
Summers, G. S.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, H.


Fort, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Foster, J. G.
Maclean, F. H. R.
Taylor, W J. (Bradford, N.)


Fraser, Hon. H. C, P. (Stone)
MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, William


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Gage, C. H.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thompson, R. H. M (Croydon[...])


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Gammans, L. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Marples, A E
Tilney, John


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Glyn, Sir R.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Turner, H. F. L.


Grimston, Hon. J (St. Albans)
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)
Turton, R. H.



Maude, J. C. (Exeter)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Maudling, R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harden, J. R. E.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mellor, Sir J.
Vosper, D F


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Molson, A H. E
Wade, D. W.


Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wakefield, E. B (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvey, Air-Codre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, C E.
Ward, Hon G. R (Worcester)


Head, Brig, A. H
Nabarro, G.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Nicholls, H.
Waterhouse, Capt C


Heald, L. F.
Nicholson, G.
Watkinson, H


Heath, Edward
Nield, B. (Chester)
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nutting, Anthony
Williams, C (Torquay)


Hill, Mrs. E (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hill, Dr C. (Luton)
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Wills, G.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W D
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hollis, M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wood, Hon R.


Hope, Lord J.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
York, C


Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Osborne, C



Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Horsbrugh, Miss F.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Mr. Drewe and


Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
brigadier Mackeson.







NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Field, Capt. W. J.
MacColl, J. E.


Adams, Richard
Finch, H. J.
McGhee, H. G


Albu, A. H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McGovern, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Follick, M.
McInnes, J


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Foot, M. M.
Mack, J. D.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Forman, J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Freeman, J, (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Ayles, W. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McNeil. Rt. Hon. H


Bacon, Miss A
Ganley, Mrs. C S
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Baird, J.
Gibson, C. W
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bartley, P.
Gooch, E, G.
Manuel, A. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Benson, G
Greenwood, Anthony W. J. (Rossendale)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F


Bing, G. H. C.
Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Blackburn, A R
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Moeran, E. W.


Boardman, H
Gunter, R. J.
Monslow, W.


Booth, A
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moody, A. S.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'v)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Brook, D (Halifax)
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L


Brooks, T. J (Normanton)
Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hardman, D. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J. D


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hargreaves, A.
Nally, W.


Burke, W. A.
Harrison, J.
Neal, H


Burton, Miss E.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


E[...]r, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hayman, F. H.
O'Brien, T.


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oldfield, W. H.


Carmichael, James
Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Orbach, M.


Champion, A. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Padley, W. E


Chetwynd, G. R
Holman, P.
Paget, R. T


Clunie, J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Cocks, F. S.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J.
Pannell, T. C.


Collick, P.
Hubbard, T.
Pargiter, G. A.


Collindridge, F.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Ccve, W. G.
Hynd, H (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)




C[...]wley, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Poole, Cecil


Crosland, C. A. R.
Irvine, A J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.


Crossman, R. H. S
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Porter, G.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Daines, P.
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Darting, G. (Hillsboro')
Jeger, G. (Goole)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Rankin, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Rees, Mrs. D.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reeves, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


Deer, G.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Richards, R.


Delargy, H. J
Keenan, W
Robens, A.


Diamond, J.
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon C. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Donnelly, D.
King, H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dye, S.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Royle, C.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lang, Rev. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edelman, M.
Lee, F. (Newton)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon, Sir H.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannook)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
L[...], G. S.
Slater, J.


Ewart, R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fairhurst, F.
Logan, D. G
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Snow, J. W.







Sorensen, R. W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Wigg, George


Sparks, J. A.
Tomney, F.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilkes, L.


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Usborne, Henry
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Stross, Dr. B
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Sylvester, G. O.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Weitzman, D.
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Winterbottom, R. E. (B[...]side)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
West, D. G.
Woods, Rev. G. S


Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)
Yates, V. F.


Thurtle, Ernest
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)



Timmons, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Bowden.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

SUPPLY

Resolved:
That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

WAYS AND MEANS

Resolved:
That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

INDUSTRIAL AREAS (NOISE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: The subject which I want to put before the Government is one which I have not been able to find time to raise in the House for the last six or eight months. It is a subject which merits greater attention than this late hour or the time at our disposal permits. It is the question of the noises—in some cases intolerable noises—which have to be accepted by many hundreds of thousands of residents

in industrial areas throughout the country. It is a question which has been perpetually before my notice in the city of Sheffield for a number of years. Many other hon. Members will have had the experience which I have had in trying to explain to constituents why it is that the unfortunate residents in the industrial areas have to put up with these sometimes indescribable conditions simply because of the situation of heavy industry in those areas. I have had many cases of this kind in my constituency, and it is not confined in Sheffield to the area of Attercliffe.
I want briefly to mention one or two cases as illustrations of the kind of thing which is going on. There is a very well known steel firm called Brown Bayleys. During the war this firm installed a heavy compressed air hammer at their works immediately opposite a crowded housing area. Because of the pressure of work during the war the hammer was constantly in operation morning, noon and night—throughout the 24 hours. I received protests not only from the residents but from local doctors who complained that they could not use stethoscopes on their patients because of the noise and vibration. Furniture was being damaged and electric bulbs were being broken, and the life of the people was quite intolerable.
So much was this the case that when I made very strong representations to the then Minister of Supply, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), I was able to obtain his assistance at least in closing down this operation during the night hours. The reason why that was possible during the war was that the Ministry of Supply had direct control over the operations of these firms,


and the reason why the Minister was so concerned about it was that the main sufferers were the steel workers and the colliers and their families, who were finding it impossible to carry on with their work because of the impossibility of getting any sleep. Incidentally, I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. Winterbottom), to whose constituency this plant has now been transferred, that, far from the situation having been mitigated, the firm is now installing a further series of compressed air hammers alongside the original. I believe that there will be time for him to make a few observations should he so desire.
A more recent case in my constituency is where the railway works in a manner that requires the engines which have been pulling trains up a long, steep incline to stop behind a closely packed residential area for the purpose of waiting for their relief teams, and, having accumulated so much pressure of steam in the long journey up the hill, they pass the time blowing off that steam.
In this case the railway authorities have been extremely forthcoming and cooperative. They have gone to great lengths to try to mitigate the hardship caused to the residents in these houses. They have installed a telephone system which enables a warning to be given that a train is approaching, and the relieving team to be on the spot to avoid wasting time and to avoid the necessity for releasing steam. They have had discussions with the staff at meetings, they have issued circulars to the staff, and they have had great co-operation from the railwaymen in the area. I have no doubt that that nuisance has been mitigated to some extent, but it is still extremely serious for these people who have never before been used to such noise opposite their houses.
I could quote a number of other cases if time permitted. Some of these firms when approached have been ready to do everything in their power, even at some little inconvenience and expense to themselves, to try to assist the unfortunate victims of this state of affairs. In other cases, however, the firms have been far from co-operative. In one recent case I have already twice written a polite letter to the firm suggesting that there might be something in the complaints of the local people, and that I

should be glad to have a talk with the manager and see the factory, but I have had no reply. That is the different attitude one meets in regard to these complaints. Cumulatively in these spots the effect upon the health, the well-being and the morale of the people is extremely serious and can give rise to drastic situations.
The Minister will probably reply that under the present law there is no remedy for this situation. I appreciate that I cannot raise any question of legislation on the Adjournment, but I hope the Minister will not content himself with simply invoking the assistance of the Common Law provisions. He must know that it is an extremely expensive business to take out an injunction in cases of that kind, a problem which it is difficult to get working-class people to face even if there were reasonable prospects of winning their case.

Sir William Darling: Legal aid.

Mr. Hynd: Legal aid would not cover a case of this kind, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well. In any case, where these are industrial scheduled areas, there is little, if any, prospect of their winning the case.
Therefore, I want to ask if my hon. Friend can do nothing within the present legislation to assist. I also want to make some suggestions. Unfortunately I would rule out at once the possibility of transferring the residents to other houses. I understand that the Sheffield City Council has been giving serious consideration to the possibility of transferring a number of the people living opposite the Brown Bayleys Works, but because there are many others waiting for houses with priority because of the time they have been on the list, that is not feasible lat present.
During the war it was possible for the Minister to bring some pressure to bear upon a firm to take some steps, as I have said. In the case of the railway nuisance at Darnall Station, the railway authorities have done their best to co-operate. In another case where opencast coal working was in operation in the Darnall district, where the houses were being shaken and the people seriously disturbed because of the blasting operations, again


it was possible, because it was a Government Department concern, for an inspector of the Department to come to the district and discuss the situation with the people and myself. As a result, an entire change was made in the process of blasting without any detrimental effect to the actual operation, which reduced the cause of disturbance and damage to the property.
If that can be done where a Government Department is involved, then I suggest that there is a great possibility of something being done to persuade firms who are not forthcoming, to take some steps and interest in problems of this kind. The difficulty, of course, is that although legislation exists which technically gives people the opportunity of recourse to the law, it is almost impossible for people to take advantage of it, for the reasons I have already given.
I suggest to the Minister that if in reply to this discussion he can give some kind of a lead to firms in industrial areas, drawing their attention to the fact that this is a matter which seriously concerns the health and well-being of people, and inviting the firms to be co-operative in making little sacrifices for their own benefit or making money available for relieving the situation of their neighbours, it might have some effect. It might have even more effect if the Minister could indicate that if such an appeal were not responded to, or reasonable reception given to the protests and appeals of local inhabitants, it might be necessary for the Government to have to take steps through legislation—which might be difficult and inconvenient at some stages—to remedy the position.
I understand that some local authorities have a by-law under which, if a certain number of residents complain of noise or other nuisance, they can begin to bring pressure upon firms to try to obtain a remedy. I do not know whether the Minister has considered extending this kind of procedure by making representations to local authorities. Whatever my hon. Friend replies, I hope that he will not merely dismiss the problem as unimportant. It is a very human problem and one which can involve serious political situations when the national position may be extremely tense, as it was during

the late war. I hope, therefore, that within the limits of existing powers, and irrespective of any long-term views on town and country planning and so on, the Minister will consult with his colleagues in the Government who are concerned—the Minister of Health, for example—with a view to seeing whether steps can be taken to bring this appeal to the notice of private employers and local authorities and whether between them they cannot find some answer to what is a real human tragedy.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Davies: I want to add a brief plea to what the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has said. I shall not bore the House with details of a case which has frequently come to my notice, except to say that at Chingford in my constituency I have had frequent complaints about a punching machine which keeps residents and workers awake at night. I took up the matter with the local council, who were quite co-operative, but there was nothing much that they could do. I pressed the matter and said that there surely must be some limit to the amount of noise which can be permitted in a residential district before the borough council is able to act. the council sent me a copy of their bylaws, which showed that they had powers to deal with noisy dogs or gramophones, but not with noisy machines.
This is certainly a serious problem. People are being kept awake at night by machines in many areas. The local authority are the people who should be able to judge the case, but it appears that in Chingford, and, I take it, in many other boroughs also, they have no power to do so. I add my complaint that the position is unsatisfactory. Surely something needs to be done, and the solution would appear to lie on the lines of encouraging local authorities, or giving them the powers, to deal with such problems.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Richard Winterbottom: I wish to support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and say that this problem of noise is very far-reaching in its consequences, not only on industrial and social life, but also in its effects on the health of the people.
I want to use the illustration of Messrs. Brown Bayleys, in my constituency. I raised the matter with my hon. Friend some time ago, and, subsequently, with the Minister of Health in an effort to secure houses for the people affected. In 1948 a licence was granted to Brown Bayleys, against whom I make no indictment, enabling them to transfer their hammers from a place where they were doing no harm to a place where they are now immediately opposite houses in Manningham Road, Sheffield.
My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe has correctly described the situation. Electric light globes are smashed daily, cups are smashed in the hands of people having meals, children are going to sleep in school because they cannot sleep at home and in the 40 houses in Manning-ham Road there is not one window whole. Without indicting anyone, because I believe this is a heritage from the past for which we can blame no one, I suggest that there are only two ways of settling the very serious problem in regard to Manningham Road. One is to remove the hammers and the other is to rehouse the people.
If the hammers were removed, production would suffer for a time and regulations in Sheffield are such as to prevent —I think rightly so—the rehousing of these people and placing them at the head of the queue because of the shortage of houses. I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe is a wise one and because this is a problem of production and houses there should be co-ordination between the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Health about housing. I appeal to the Minister to re-examine the matter, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, to see what can be done to help people who cannot get to sleep, day or night, because of constant banging.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I wish to emphasise what has been said on the question of housing. As The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is present, I hope he will give some hope to Sheffield that we shall have our housing allocation increased, because at the moment we are woefully short. Another 1,000 houses in Sheffield would go a long way to help in this problem, as in others. I hope that hon. Members

on both sides of the House will support our plea for an extra 1,000 houses.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: As a technical man who has spent many years of his life in the steel industry, I would point out that there are two alternatives—to move the people from the houses affected, or to move the hammers. The second alternative might appear simple on paper, but I can assure the House that to remove the hammers would mean removing practically the whole of these works. As an ex-steel worker I know that these men are making an excellent contribution to our recovery.
Those who cannot get sleep because of the noise should receive the attention of the two Ministries concerned; everything possible should be done, even at the expense of priorities being denied those who think they should have priorities over these men. I make my plea, from an adjacent constituency, that the matter should be given the urgent attention it deserves.

10.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I am sure that the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Nigel Davies) will not mind my ignoring his point, serious though that may have been to the people in the immediate surroundings. This problem in Sheffield, and in some other industrial towns, is one of tremendous magnitude and the matter to which he referred is, by comparison, a small one.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: People have human feelings I suppose, even though they did not vote Socialist.

Mr. Lindgren: Even at this time of night the right hon. Gentleman should not make such interjections. I was about to deal with the Sheffield case.

Mr. Nigel Davies: The case I put was not negligible.

Mr. Lindgren: It is in comparison with Sheffield's problem.
In Sheffield, the problem arises from the ills of the past—from the days when it was quite common to intermingle industrial and domestic premises. In this instance it is the houses which are in the


wrong place, and the only solution of the problem is to remove all the people at present in these houses to some other area where they will not suffer this inconvenience. The area in which they are situated is a heavy industrial area, with forges all over the place, and in Sheffield's plans it is intended to be designated as a heavy industrial area.
The question of the removal of these people is a matter for the Sheffield City Council, who are the housing authority. It is for them to deal with the matter in relation to the problem generally which they have in Sheffield. The Sheffield City Council are a very good housing authority. They must be left to deal with the problem in their own way. As one with considerable local government experience, let me say, frankly, that at present if these people were taken out of these houses, as some of them may have been for all I know, immediately there would be a demand from someone worse housed to go into the houses they have vacated. There would be a hue and cry in Sheffield if the houses were pulled down on being vacated—that is the real solution, which is a long-term one.
Now we come to the question of reducing the noise during particular periods. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) referred to the fact that during the war the five-ton hammer was stopped during the night. That concession has been continued, and that hammer even now only works on the six-to-two shift.

Mr. R. Winterbottom: Would my hon. Friend make inquiries about that? Not only does the hammer operate for 24 hours during seven days of the week, but the new 5-ton hammer, for which a licence has been granted by the hon. Gentleman's Ministry, will also operate for the same time.

Mr. Lindgren: I have taken the opportunity afforded me to make certain about the facts. I understand that there are six hammers. One is a five-ton hammer, only used on the six-to-two shift and, as occasion demands, on the two-to-ten shift. Unfortunately, that is not all; there is a three-ton hammer, two 15 cwt. hammers, and two of 10 cwts., going throughout the 24 hours—[Interruption.] I can only go on the information I have, and I am told

that the five-ton hammer only works during the six-to-two shift and, as I have said, occasionally on the two-to-ten shift. But the others do, in fact, go at varying periods throughout the 24 hours. In relation to the possibility of re-siting them, it has been pointed out that re-siting the shops, and completely changing round the hammers, the furnaces, and the sand pits for forging, and all the rest of it, would be an expensive and almost an impossible task, because it would entail closing the works for some considerable time.
Everybody has the utmost sympathy for the residents who suffer this very great hardship of living in these terrible—I would even say abominable—conditions. I was glad to hear from both my hon. Friends the Members for Attercliffe and Brightside (Mr. R. Winterbottom) that, in general, the firms in the district have done their best. My Ministry has had the utmost co-operation from the firms and that also applies to the Ministry of Supply. If my hon. Friends would discuss with me their difficulties I will see if we can get things on a more satisfactory basis. The railways are excluded from the general conditions about noise but, there again, I am glad to have got the confirmation that they have met the case so far as they possibly could under present conditions.
I am afraid that the reply is not satisfactory. The only satisfactory solution would be the complete evacuation of the people to some other area, making over the whole area to heavy industry. That will be done as soon as accommodation can be found. The Sheffield City Council has, as the housing authority, the responsibility of dealing with that.

Mr. P. Roberts: Would the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance to the House that he will press his right hon. Friend to give an increased allocation of houses to Sheffield?

Mr. Lindgren: There is no question of pressure, so far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, for an increased house allocation. The rate of building is very largely determined by the labour force available in the area.

Mr. J. Hynd: Would the Parliamentary Secretary ask the local authorities to pay more attention to this question?

Mr. Lindgren: The local authorities are in a very difficult position. Sheffield's town plan excludes housing from this area, which is a zoned industrial area. So far as the local authority is concerned, it has very little powers at all, because the normal industrial activities of these firms, as forging firms, mean having heavy presses going and having the necessary steel works there. The local authority cannot interfere with a normal, legitimate business.
My opinion, both from the experience of the Sheffield City Council and from our own experience as a Ministry in negotiation with the firms concerned, is that they have been most co-operative in trying to mitigate, as far as possible, the trouble which arises.

Mr. R. Winterbottom: Will my hon. Friend ask, as a result of this Debate, the Minister of Health, in consultation with the Sheffield City Council, for special consideration in respect of the

people in the heavily affected Manning-ham Road?

Mr. Lindgren: That is a matter which my hon. Friend ought to take up with the Minister of Health direct. I merely hinted that if these people were moved and the houses pulled down, an outcry would be raised.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why it was that this problem was aggravated by these licences being granted. Was his Ministry consulted before these licences were issued?

Mr. Lindgren: It is not necessary because the local authority is the planning authority.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.